Tabroom.com

Middle School TOC hosted by UK

2022 — NSDA Campus, KY/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Oluwatobiloba Adebara Debate Go

Albert Adiputra Indian Mountain School

Aaron Agarwal Atlas None

Ashwin Anand Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 4:29 AM PDT

Pronouns: he/him

Experience:

Junior at Dougherty Valley High School. I have experience in PF, Congress, LD, and Impromptu

General:

Email: ashwinad.debate@gmail.com

Before we start the actual debate, send me and your opponents your full case, with all the cut cards and taglines you read. It makes the round go smoother and way more efficiently. Please label email chains adequately. Ex. "TOC R1 F1 Email Chain (Team Name) v. (Team Name)."

Please have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. Don't be late. Read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want.

Look to the bottom of the paradigm for strategic stuff but the info right under this is speech specific.

Actual Content:

I vote purely off the flow and in-round evidence.

I also vote off of any argument (tech>truth) as long as it's not blatantly offensive and is well explained/warranted properly.

Signpost in speech. Makes your speeches and my flow a lot cleaner.

Speed

I'm good with speed. If you're gonna spread, send a speech doc.

Rebuttal

Read as much offense as you want. Just implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, and some defense.

Summary/Focus

- The first speaking team doesn't need to extend defense that the second speaker doesn't address in rebuttal. Turns need to be extended. That being said, if the argument in question is a big issue, it'd only help you to extend the terminal defense

- WEIGH THE IMPACTS. Otherwise, it's hard as a judge to choose which impacts are the largest and I'll be forced to interfere based on your ev. I'll also call for impact evidence if it comes down to it

- If links aren't well explained in summary, I'll refrain from voting off of it, even if it's extended in final focus (basically don't blip any links in summary)

- No new args in the second final focus. If something new is brought up in the second summary, the first final can respond (if they want to), but by that time, neither side should be reading any new args anyways. I'll drop it off my flow

Cross

- I don't flow cross but it will count in your speaks

- Be as assertive as you want but don't be blatantly rude

- Please use cross to ask good questions, and not an entire speech and then asking "Do you agree?"

Evidence

- Send cut cards, not links to articles.

- I'm fine with exchanging evidence through an email chain but don't ask for too much evidence and steal prep. Easiest way to dock off speaks

- I will call for cards if a debater asks me to; it seems sketchy; I want it for myself; it is EXTREMELY important to the decision

- If the evidence is blatantly clipped/misinterpreted, I will drop it

- If a team takes more than 1 mins for a card, either it's striked from the flow or you need to take your own prep time to pull it up

Progressive:

I'll evaluate Ks and theory. I might make the wrong decision but I enjoy listening to progressive rounds. If you're running theory, email me before the round so I'm prepared.

Specifically Disclosure Theory:

Email or text your opponents before the round and ask them if they can disclose. If you run the theory without asking your opponents, I'll auto vote for the opposite side.

Speaks:

Things I dock speaks off for:

- Being extremely rude in cross

- Stealing prep

- Going 15+ seconds over time

If nothing is done from this list then you can expect a very high speaks count for all the debaters

Other Things I Like:

- Comparative weighing

- SIGNPOSTING in speech

- Brief Roadmaps

- Strategic Cross

- Weighing as soon as possible

- Summary/ff parallelism (which basically means mirror your summary and final focus so that both have the same narrative)

Please let me know if you have any other specific questions. Shout out to Ivan Shah for letting me use his paradigm as a boilerplate.

As a wise person once said, " your impact must be "gumoungus", or I vote for the other team."

Kashish Arora Power Speakers Unlimited

Bukunmi Babatunde Debate Go

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:32 AM WAT

Introduction:

Hello, I'm Bukunmi Babatunde, a graduate from the University of Ilorin. As a debate judge, my mission is to foster fairness and promote learning. Here's a summary of my judging approach:

Conflicts: None

Email address: bukunmi5176@gmail.com

Expectations:

When you encounter me in a debate, I prioritize fairness and active engagement. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, engage with the debate's burdens, and respectfully address opposing arguments.

Open-mindedness:

Even if you don't agree with the framing or the argument, I encourage you to engage with the other team's case. This demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and helps foster a constructive dialogue.

Clashes and Focus:

To have clashes in the debate, it's crucial to pinpoint and compare the warrants behind arguments. Examples, precedents, and empirics don't clash unless the warrants are addressed. Summaries should focus on key points, warrants, and reasons for winning, without reviving untouched arguments.

Equity and Timekeeping:

Following equity rules is essential for a fair debate environment. Please keep track of time, as it helps maintain a well-organized and efficient debate.

Special Considerations:

In virtual debate tournaments, if feasible, keeping your camera on is encouraged. Technical issues with wifi or connection are understandable. Additionally, please ensure your speeches are clear and intelligible, delivering at a medium pace for effective communication.

Other Remarks:

As a judge, I prioritize neutrality and impartiality. I appreciate well-structured arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Clear articulation, persuasive language, and a logical flow in speeches are valued. Respectful conduct, adaptability, and effective rebuttals are important.

Evaluation and Feedback:

At the end of the debate, I evaluate each debater's overall performance based on the strength of their arguments, critical analysis, presentation skills, and engagement with the opponent's case. Constructive feedback will be provided to facilitate growth and improvement.

Conclusion:

My goal as a debate judge is to create a fair and intellectually stimulating environment. I evaluate arguments impartially, emphasizing logic, evidence, and adaptability. Through valuable feedback, I aim to contribute to the growth and development of all debaters involved.

Akaash Babu The Quarry Lane School

Sanjana Bajaj The Quarry Lane School

Ashwika Bansal Power Speakers Unlimited

Justin Bayani Potomac Debate Academy

Dylan Beach Potomac Debate Academy

Bryan Benitez Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Marc Bennett Alice Deal

Preity Bhagia SpiderSmart Learning Center of Bellaire

Arya Bhangale Power Speakers Unlimited

Shabbir Bohri The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 10:19 PM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Stefan Boone BASIS Independent Silicon Valley

Last changed on Sun January 23, 2022 at 5:30 AM EDT

add me to the chain: stefan.boone12@gmail.com

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. 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. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more. (However, dropped defense sticks to infinity if it goes unresponded to by the other team)

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense and responding to frontlines that are made, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interepretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

Tech vs Truth:

i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well

Miscellaneous:

i vote for the neg on presumption unless warranting given for a different way of presuming.

i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

i am mostly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

Speaks - ill give the highest the tournament allows me to

I cannot keep up with speeds over around 900 words /four minute. Give a speech doc if u plan on going faster.

please ask any questions you may have before the round

Mike Bryant VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Jon-Carlo Canezo SpiderSmart Learning Center of Bellaire

Ben Carson Bergen Debate Club

Last changed on Mon September 2, 2024 at 6:47 AM EDT

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

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

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

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

Blake Chandler HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Elizabeth Chavez Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Hua Chen Potomac Debate Academy

Keira Chen Aurorae Young Academy

Last changed on Fri December 2, 2022 at 3:57 PM PDT

Nice to meet you! I'm Keira, call me Keira. I go by she/they.

Ask me anything before the round starts. I am reasonable!

Quick tips:

- Jokes + analogies = I am entertained = more speaks for you

- Don't be rude asdlkf

- Time yourselves, run the round so that I don't need to call on the next speaker for you. No need to ask "is the judge ready?" before every speech; I am always ready unless I say otherwise!

Add me to the email chain if there is one: kyraximin@gmail.com

About

I'm still a student. I'm still figuring out what debates/styles I prefer over others. That means you can run whatever you want!! :D

That being said, I'm NOT a lay judge. I flow. If you have them, explain K/T/Theory thoroughly.

Speed

haha I do policy

If we're online, be aware of your background noise/not-so-great mic/spotty Wi-Fi/etc., and adjust your speed to accommodate for those things, because it's up to you to clearly get your messages across to your opponents and me.

Speaks

You'll get high speaks (28-30) UNLESS you're egregiously bad or doing something stupid (being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, anything along those lines)

Might as well put this here too: ask questions, but don't argue with my decision at the end of the round. You can be salty, just don't be a [insert bad word here].

Policy

People like talking fast in this debate style but please be clear if you decide to do so. I'll try to clear twice before giving up on flowing. Giving the order before starting your speech helps a lot.

Explain your links and cards at least a little when you extend them. Just saying "extend Bob '22" doesn't cut it, I need to know why.

I don't flow cross, but being mean in cross probably costs speaker points.

Yes theory is the highest layer but if you do not explain standards/voters properly then it doesn't work. Also, if you're going for theory, you collapse on theory ONLY.

Rhetoric is great.

It greatly pains me to vote for extinction impacts just because "oh no everyone's going to die." Please explain it compellingly- respond to the probability argument.

Public Forum

Clarity > Tech > Truth. If it sounds like your case doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to me either. Explain all your stuff, explain why it matters and sound at least kind of dedicated to it. Don't be mean to people with less experience. Actually, just don't be mean, thanks

I don't flow cross-ex but I do listen. Bring those points up in the next speech.

Do weighing whenever you want, but make sure you have something you can actually weigh- I'm not going to vote for a half-developed argument.

Explain why I should prefer your evidence.

Prove that you're better, not that they're worse- have offense.

On dropped arguments- tell me that they dropped the argument and if that is true in my flow, I'll be less likely to consider it.

Thank your opponents at the end of the round :)

Lixia Chen Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Yu Chen Germantown Academy

William Chien The Harker School None

Terry Choi BC Academy

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 5:26 AM PDT

Terry Choi

Experience: 4 years of debate experience in high school in mainly PF, some LD and BP.

Judging experience: on and off PF, impromptu, etc. during high school and my 5 year university life.

Quick TLDR:

-Spread at your own risk.

-No new arguments in summary and final focus, direct evidence to support existing arguments and rebuttals is A-OK.

-Off-time roadmaps at a reasonable length=OK

-Logic is important, logic with evidence is important-er, logic with evidence and nice impacts is important-est. Evidence alone without logic=big sad, don't do it. If you decide to do it, I will forget about it.

-Grace period: finish your last thought after time is up, but if you can end your speech just before/just as the time is up, that will get you a small bonus to speaker points :)

-Although I am in University and know fundamentals of economics and financial mathematics, pretend that I am a literate high-school education farmer who farms potatoes for a living-hence, explain concepts as concisely as possible, especially if the topic is niche.

If you have more questions, scroll down to the detailed version. Other than that, HLGF, lets have a good debate.

Detailed version (wall of text):

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

Paradigms in PF:

Main ideas:

-Be polite and respectful. Do not bash opponents, keep your emotions in line. There will be consequences depending on severity.

-Be honest. Do not fabricate, manipulate or tamper with evidence. There will also be consequences according to tournament rules.

-Spread at your own risk: you may speak as quickly or slowly at your discretion, but being unclear or too fast that the judge cannot understand your arguments is not the judge's fault, it is yours. If I feel that the speed is too fast and your are too unclear, then I will take off points. This is a high school PF tournament, remember that and try to keep it at that level. If you spread like you are Eminem or a congress debater, I will mostly likely not completely know what you are saying and I may also scream incoherently.

-Time you take in requesting evidence will NOT come out of your or opponent's prep time, but reading opponents evidence will. That being said, if it takes too long to produce evidence, I will start running prep time and if none can be provided in time, it will be disqualified. Still, try to mention the fact that evidence was disqualified to your judge if the evidence was super important in the debate.

-Your arguments should have a premise, evidence, reasoning/link and impacts. Although I believe PF is a more evidence centered debate than other debating styles such as LD, if a team rebuts your evidence with reasoning and you do not defend your evidence with reasoning/reasoning with evidence, they may win the argument. Evidence alone does not win you arguments.

-Framework (including defining key definitions) is totally fine, but prepare to justify your definitions or framework using reasoning and evidence. If your opponents points out that they may be unjustified/abusive and you do not defend it/fail to defend it, I will not accept your framework. Conversely, if I believe your framework is abusive/unjustified but your opponents do not point it out, I will accept the framework as the opponents apparently had no issue with it. Just don't revolve all your rounds on the framework war, no judge wants to see that.

-Do not bring up new arguments in Summary or Final Focus speeches; I will disregard it, even if your opponents do not point it out. Extending existing arguments are totally fine. New evidence is fine in both summary or final, but only if it supports your existing arguments or rebuttals directly. If I do not see the evidence as direct enough, I throw it out.

-No Kritiks please, nor things such as plans.

-"Grace Time": end your line of thought, and stop. If you go too over the time limit, I will start deducting points.

-I do allow offtime roadmaps. However, if it is too long or excessive/exploitive, I will start cutting points.

-In crossfires, I will allow you to answer the question even if the time is up; no asking new questions when time is up though.

-Content warnings: if you are going to talk about some really graphic content (example: detailed stories of rape, murder, genocide, lobotomy, etc) then give a content warning to everyone before you begin your speech. A good rule of thumb is that if it isn't something you should speak in front of a sheltered elementary schooler, it probably requires a content warning. Better safe than sorry.

-IF OFFLINE TOURNEY: Turn on airplane mode, but I will allow you to turn it off if you need to reference a card requested in the debate. No evidence searching is allowed during debates. Keep in mind this rule can change based on tourney/state rules.

-IF ONLINE TOURNEY: tournament regulations come first before what I am about to state, but also I would like everyone to turn on their cameras and mute their mics when they are not speaking. Try to debate in a quiet place without a lot of people, if there is a person who is next to you once in a while it looks pretty suspicious. Also, no evidence searching online in the middle of tourney- evidence you have should be in paper, and if it is obvious you are searching up crap online while people are debating I will make a note of that.

-I will also be reading important evidence after the debate, so assume that the opponents' evidence are not fabricated during the debate even if they are really powerful or sound farfetched. For good measure, if you are sketchy about a certain piece of evidence that they used, let me know after I disclose the winner. If the evidence is found to be fabricated, I will ensure that action is taken, your tourney standings rectified and the fabricators of evidence punished to the fullest extent.

Those are my main PF paradigms. Have fun! :)

Jacob Chon Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Thomas Chon Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Naina Chopra Dougherty Valley Bridge None

Miria Chung Ascent Academy

Zachary Crouch BL Debate

Nicolas Cuesta VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Last changed on Fri February 10, 2023 at 7:50 AM EDT

Before the round begins, I kindly request that the teams send me their cases in advance. This will greatly assist me in keeping track of the arguments and taking thorough notes during the round. Although this is not a requirement, it will help to improve the quality of my decision and feedback. I would like to assure you that the case information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of the round. Teams will not be penalized if they choose not to share their case. This request is solely aimed at enhancing the academic outcome of the round.

How I base my decision: Warrants (45%), Weighing Mechanism (45%), Impact (10%)

It is important to note that while teams may focus on the magnitude of their impact, a strong argument also requires a well-supported warrant and a method for comparing and weighing arguments. A lack of these elements can weaken the overall effectiveness of an argument.

Tips to Strengthen Warrants in a Debate: 1) Challenge or defend the logic or evidence presented by your opponent instead of simply restating your own argument. This will bring new information to the discussion and help me understand the issue better. 2) During crossfire, ask "how" and "why" questions that focus on the reasoning behind your opponent's argument. Using common sense can also be valuable, as it can support a hypothesis that is backed by evidence and basic reasoning.

Examples of weighing mechanisms: utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, priority based on urgency or importance, ethical principals: fairness, justice or equality, trade-offs.

Speaker points: Content & preparedness Quality (80%), speed (20%)

Your speaker points will primarily be determined by the quality of your arguments. The rest of the score will take into account your speaking speed. Public Forum debates should be clear and easily understood by all listeners, and speaking at a moderate pace will ensure everyone is able to fully follow and engage with the debate. I am comfortable with average speaking speeds, but if there are any misunderstandings due to excessive speed, it's important for the speakers to remember that it is ultimately their responsibility to communicate their ideas clearly.

Griffin Darden Mountain Brook High School

Rakhee Das SpiderSmart Learning Center of Bellaire

Liz Dela Cruz VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 5:02 AM CDT

Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: lizdelacruz@me.com PF Paradigm (Updated 021621)

Expirence: I debated and coached Policy (Cross-ex) debate for a number of years. If you want to know what I did, scroll down, I have my Cross-Ex (Policy) Paradigm below.

Note:

I am a flow judge! I will provide a Google Doc Link to use. I prefer this to an email chain because I there is a delay in getting emails sometimes. I also don't like putting the evidence in the chat function. It is easier for me to go back and review the evidence.

I also usually always pop up a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my Paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

General:

1. Debate is about having a good time and learning, please be respectful to everyone. Just remember that this is just a round and there will be another. Do your best and have fun.

2. Due to my policy background, I like Signposting. Please let me know where to go on the flow. Think of my flow as a blank slate. You tell me what to write and where. Moving contentions or switching from Pro flow to Con flow? Tell me.

3. I will vote for FW, independent Voting issues, and Pre-req arguments. But there needs to be enough substance for me to do so. If you decided to go for any of these, make sure to extend the case evidence that is needed to back it up. If not, it tends to be hard for me to vote on it.

4. I debated both theory and K in debate. If you want to do it, I am fine with it, but make sure to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic and your corresponding side.

5. If there is something said in Cross and you would like to use it in the round I am fine with it. But you need to make sure that you bring it in the speech to make it binding.

6. Just saying cross-apply case doesn’t mean anything. Or extend …. Card from case- give me substance and warrants for why you are extending it for me to consider it.

Summary/FF:

1. Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the Case to the summary and from the Summary to the Final Focus. It is key make sure to extend and explain.

2. You can only use what you extend in the Summary in the Final Focus.

3. I am a big fan of weighing! Magnitude, scope, impact analysis, substance love it all. Makes my job easier.

4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!

Speed:

1. I did policy, speed is not an issue. Please don’t ask me if you were to fast. I can hear you.

2. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are concerned about me not flowing your speech, then slow down and enunciate!

3. I will not tell you clear or slow, those things are for you to work on as a debater. If you are worried about it, then do speaking drills before the round and speak slower.

Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)

Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University

Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!

Experience: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?

Voting Style: Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.

Speed and flowing: There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on. Policy

Argument Issues: Case: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.

Non-Traditional Affs I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.

Topicality I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.

Theory Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.

Performance I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.

Kritiks I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.

DA Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.

CP I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.

Arianna Desai Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Tue September 10, 2024 at 7:46 PM EDT

Senior at Dougherty Valley High School. I have experience in PF, LD, and Impromptu, PF being my main event for 6 years.

General:

Email: desai.arianna@gmail.com

Before we start the debate, send me your full case, with all the cut cards and taglines you read. It makes the round go smoother and way more efficiently. Please label email chains adequately. Ex. "TOC R1 F1 Email Chain (Team Name) v. (Team Name)."

Speech docs for rebuttal probably should be sent to avoid time delays. I'll let everyone know in the round if it's necessary depending on where we are when finishing constructive.

Please have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. Don't be late. Read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want.

Actual Content:

tech>truth

I vote off of any argument as long as it is not blatantly offensive and is well explained/warranted properly.

Signpost in speech. Makes your speeches and my flow a lot cleaner.

I'm good with speed as long as you speak clearly. If you're going to spread incoherently(your speaks will be docked), send me a speech doc.

Rebuttal

Read as much offense/DAs as you want. Just implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. The second rebuttal MUST frontline.

Summary/Focus

- extend everything, defense is not sticky.

- Please weigh. Please. Don't just use buzzwords.

- If links aren't well explained in summary, I'll refrain from voting off it, even if it's extended in final focus. (basically don't blip any links in summary)

-Mirror summary and final!

-Collapse!

Cross

- I enjoy a good cross and will boost your speaks if you do well.

- Please use cross to ask good questions, not giving an entire speech and then asking "Do you agree?".

Evidence

- Send cut cards, not links to articles. If the card is not cut, the card is not evaluated.

- I'm fine with exchanging evidence through an email chain but don't ask for too much evidence and steal prep.

- I will not call for cards, if you want me to look at ev, you call for it.

- If the evidence is clipped/misinterpreted I WILL ONLY DROP IT IF YOU CALL IT OUT.

- If a team takes more than 1 min for a card, either it's struck from the flow or you need to take your own prep time to pull it up.

Progressive:

-I'll evaluate Ks and theory. This is PF though, so run Ks at your own risk because we do not do them right.

-Tell me before the round so I can get more paper.

Specifically Disclosure Theory:

Email or text your opponents before the round and ask them if they can disclose. If you run the theory without asking your opponents, I'll automatically vote for the opposite side. If contact info is not available then you can run it at the risk of contact info shell.

Have fun, and make friends!

Lars Deutz Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:21 PM CDT

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

I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
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.
If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
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

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

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

PF Summary/Final Focus

Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
Extend and weigh any argument you go for
Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded

Theory

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).
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

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
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

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

I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

Nethra Dhamodaran Dougherty Valley Bridge

Nina Dolden VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Terrance Dsilva Ivy Bridge Academy

Daphne Du Dougherty Valley Bridge

Laurice Duan HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 5:23 AM CDT

overall:

please make debate a safe and educational space!! don't be sexist/ableist/racist/homophobic/etc, respect pronouns, and use appropriate content warnings. email me (lauriceduan@utexas.edu) if you ever feel unsafe in round. also upon further reflection, i think i may be more of a flay judge than a flow judge - take that as you will.

general pf info

- tech > truth
- pleaseeeeeeee come pre-flowed
- i'm okay with pf speed. i hate flowing off a speech doc. i'll do it if you really want me to, but i'll be a bit annoyed about it
- i don't listen to cross at all. like not even in the slightest im sorry. if something important happens, it has to make its way into a speech. if both teams want to skip gcx, y'all can both get a minute of prep.
- time yourself and your opponents!
- second rebuttal MUST answer any offensive arguments, or it's conceded
- defense is NOT sticky
- offense needs to be extended through summary and ff for me to evaluate it. if your opponents don't, call them out!! i don't want to do that work for you. please please please extend please please please
- weighing needs to be in summary, but it can start even earlier. i won't look at new weighing in ff
- please extend evid by content and not author names. i don't flow author names (yikes sorry)
- pref warranted claims > evidence with no warrants

technical pf info

- i presume neg for policy resolutions and first speaking team for on balance resolutions. if you want me to presume differently, just tell me why!
- if you ask me to disclose, i'll disclose after round with speaks too if y'all care
- don't say you're conceding the delink to kick out of the turn. tell me what the delink is and how that gets you out of turns.
- i won't call for evidence unless it's the most important arg in the round. i think it's interventionist, but if y'all want me to intervene, I will. just don't have bad evid ethics
- i try to give really high speaks because i think people who don't are pretentious. lowest i go is 27 - obviously that changes if you were rude or problematic

progressive

- i feel comf evaluating basic theory shells (disclosure, paraphrasing, tw, etc.)
- default to competing interps/counter interps > reasonability andno rvis, unless you tell me otherwise
- if you think you have a well-warranted progressive argument and want to read it, do what you want! i will do my best to follow along, just be patient with me :( i just don't fully trust my ability to evaluate Ks, tricks, etc.
- i think tw are helpful, and i'd rather be safe than sorry. if you're ever triggered in a round, do not hesitate to tell me to stop the round, we can figure it out from there.

happy debating and good luck!! have fun out there :)

Michael Eberle Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Last changed on Sat April 29, 2023 at 2:19 AM CDT

Background:

11 years of debate and coaching experience
College National BP Debate Champion

K's, topicality, and spreading are all open. Questions of topicality and evaluation of Kritiks will be judged first by their relevance and will not be considered valid if used as a means to avoid a valid debate.

Paradigm: Policymaker, Hypothesis, Games

First and foremost, all debate is an educational activity designed to become a coordinated and collaborative discussion in which both sides are competing to form a better understanding of a given issue, plan, philosophy, or outcome. By that standard, the best teams are the ones that can beat the best possible versions of their opponents. Little to no weight is given to strawman attacks against their opponent which does little to prove the strength of one's own argument. Additionally, respect will always matter more. No team will be punished for being passionate, unique, raising their voice, or "aggressive." However, teams that are disrespectful and rude towards their opponent will be noted by their lower speaker points and potential faults in their argumentative/persuasive ability.

I care first about the comparatives and their collective balancing. 1 positive argument by its own weight can potentially be more persuasive than 3 dropped negative arguments. As such, a dropped contention is persuasive but not condemning. Arguments which turn an argument against itself or its principle are particularly persuasive. You are not debating the judge. Each idea will be given its own merit and credit, however, I am not entirely tabula rasa and will not grant an idea inherent credit simply because it was said in passing. Teams that attempt to unnecessarily narrow/skew the debate either topically or definitionally will be noted as having run from the most important facets of the entire activity. I encourage each side to attempt to take their opponent at their best and the team that contributes to the collective and cooperative discussion best will be the team that wins. No idea is considered facially invalid except those fundamentally relying on bigotry. Use debate as an opportunity to test your persuasive ability and argumentation. When appropriate, it is entirely valid to work towards, imagine, establish, or critique a hypothetical context so that an argument can be weighed in its proper setting.

Principled argumentation is highly valued. Policy is characterized first by the principle or philosophy which justifies the action. Failing to uphold that principle, or simply not having a foundational philosophy, will weaken your stance to complete dependency on your ads and disads. Impacts are weighed on their likelihood as well as their significance. Nuclear war, if poorly linked, means very little. 1 person suffering all the torment of the world means quite a lot even if the scope is small. Taking hardline stances is encouraged as you test conventional wisdom, assumptions, and biases, and will not be held against the team that does so. Overall, cases should not be two ships passing in the night attempting to fire ads and disads at one another. They should be principled and each at the heart of the discussion asking "Why are we talking about this?" The two ships should crash into each other and the better ship is the one still floating.

Maverick Edwards BL Debate

Ezekiel Ehrenberg Hire

Maya ElHawary VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Hema Erva The Golden State Academy None

Gabriel Esquivel Yglesias ADL

Last changed on Sat May 18, 2024 at 12:48 AM CST

Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

For K's I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I am patient with novices because most of my students are novices.

I listen first and read your evidence second. If you are clear, this distinction shouldn't matter. If you aren't clear I'm not comfortable reading your blocks and cards to fill in the gaps for you.

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

Mindy Farrell Alice Deal None

Cavin Gada Bergen Debate Club

Chery Gada Bergen Debate Club

Chris Gentry The Harker School

Last changed on Thu March 21, 2024 at 7:46 AM CDT

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator 4 years, double member parli, experience coaching and judging PF. Policy, Parli

Add me to your email chain chris.gentry.e@Gmail.com

Former Coach Hubbard High School

Former Coach Harker Middle School

Current Chicago Debates Program Manager - 2 years

High school and college debater – graduated college in last 5 years

1.Clarity > speed:Clarity helps everyone, I am happy to listen to you spreading and will happily get most of it, just slow down on the tags so I know where we are if I get lost.

2.Neg positions: Overwhelmingly the biggest issue I see in debate is students poorly linking neg positions. cool your impact scenario is great but your link is weak so I struggle to care.

3. Cross x Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 27.5-30 points, 27.5 being for poor speech, less than 27.5 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clearer or louder 3 times.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Not a ton, mostly to confirm accuracy and understanding

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

To ensure proper decisions and to confirm accuracy if any cards feel like they are incredible.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

As long as it is clear and warranted especially on ground loss. I need the impacts to be fully leveled out, and I need there to be solid arguments for fairness impacts.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are resolution specific versus the generic kritik, however I am fine with the generic kritik as long as you tie it well to your argument and the resolution being debated. I will vote on perm and theory if presented well. That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

They don’t need to read a plan but they do need an advocacy that is different than the SQ

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

I find performance-based arguments to struggle on solvency. I find the nature of debate to sometimes be constricting to performance. I am not saying I won't vote for it, I just need you to explain why your performance produces in-round solvency in opposition to the performance of debating/criticizing or advocating for policies

I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. So while I am not biased towards projects or performances so long as they are grounded in some context that is in round, I think they can still be interesting and get a ballot.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I enjoy good K v K debates

I enjoy unique critical debates

I also have a large background in policy both in real life and in deate and am happy to handle policy args too

Thomas Gill Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 4:55 AM CDT

I debated for 4 years at Blake and now coach for Blake. I previously coached at Potomac Debate Academy

Updated for UK 2024

Emails:

tmgill719@gmail.com

blakedocs@googlegroups.com

Note: I will not flow off your doc. It is your responsibility to communicate your arguments to me

Sending a google doc that is set to view only defeats the entire purpose of the email chain- I cannot verify if your cards are correctly cut, if you omitted context, etc if you do not give me clickable links. Especially with bracketing as pervasive as it is, please just send a Word file, pdf, or paste cards directly into the chain

General Philosophy

-I would generally describe myself as someone who believes in “tech over truth,” with the caveat that I need to understand your argument well enough to explain it back to you if I’m going to vote on it

-I am happy to listen to whatever you want to read, though I am most comfortable in topic-focused rounds (which include Ks that have specific links to the topic). I personally do not have much experience running or coaching K positions, but I know how they function and am happy to listen to anything as long as it is well warranted. Theory in front of me is fine too, though I don't like nitpicky disclosure debates (Open Source v First 3/Last 3 v Full Text) unless there is some egregious violation

-On theory more specifically, I generally believe that paraphrasing is bad, disclosure is good, RVIs are bad, and that reasonability > competing interps. None of these matter when I am judging, but these are my biases when it comes to theory

Things I Like

-Actual cards. PF evidence norms have gotten significantly better over the last couple of years, but there is still work to be done. Be able to produce whatever you are reading with full cites quickly.

-The split. I think it is necessary that the 2nd rebuttal goes back and covers at least turns, and ideally the best defensive responses. This not only makes the round more fair, but also is probably strategic for you

-Voting issues. This is just a personal thing, but I prefer for you to organize your summary/FF into voting issues. If you don't it's fine, but it is, in my opinion, an easy way to clarify the round and helping show me where you are winning and where you want me to vote. If you don't that's fine, just make sure your story is clear

-Signposting. If I don't know where you are on the flow I may not be able to follow you and will probably miss things. It's in your best interest to make sure I don't miss anything

-Weighing. I'll be the first to admit that as a debater I am not the greatest at weighing. Still, link and impact weighing can be easy ways to win my ballot. Tell me why your links/impacts are more important than theirs so I don't have to work through it myself. It'll make my job easier and make you happier

-Evidence comparison. If I'm presented with evidence that says that, for example, says the Arctic has huge levels of tension, and another that says that the Arctic is peaceful, I don't know how to resolve that unless you compare them for me (Dates? Authors? Warrants? Etc)

-Full link chains in the 2nd half of the round. Please tell me what the resolution means in terms of your links/impacts instead of just going into an impact debate. Too often link extensions are not very well explained or just assumed. Even if it is dropped, please extend the full link

-Consistency through Summary/FF. Your summary and final focus should be very similar and extend most of the same things. In order for me to vote on something it needs to be in summary, so your final focus shouldn't have anything new/pulled from before summary, except for maybe weighing but even then it's tough to win off of. 3 minute summaries means there has to be collapse, but offense has to be in both for me to vote

-I would ask that you extend defense in summary. I think extending your best defense is a good idea. It depends on the defense/frontlines whether I will let you extend from first rebuttal to first FF (to be safe always extend the defense you have time for). Defense MUST be in 2nd summary though

-Have fun and be yourself. If you are enjoying yourself, I will probably enjoy myself too

Things I Don't Like

-I have an extremely low threshold for responses on "death good" or "extinction good" arguments. I would rather that you just not read them

-Long evidence exchanges. Not sure why this is an issue, but it is. If you read a card in round, you should be able to produce it for me/the other team within a couple of minutes. If you can't, I'll probably be sad. This has gotten especially egregious in online debates and makes them drag on forever. I don't want to be chilling on a zoom for an hour and a half because teams can't produce the evidence they are reading

-Random debate jargon without explanation. "Uniqueness controls the direction of the link" may be true in the round and I know what you're saying, but explain to me what that actually means in the context of your arguments

-Fake weighing. Weigh on probability, time frame, magnitude, or pre rec. I guess I'll accept scope and strength of link as weighing mechanisms, but those are just other words for magnitude and probability. Anything else will make me sad

-Lazy debating. Interact with defense, don't just give me the argument that you have "risk of offense" and hope to win my ballot

-Extending through ink. If you don't clash/interact with your opponents' responses, but still extend your arguments, all it does it makes the round messy and harder to judge.

-Racist/sexist/homophobic and other hateful language and arguments. Debate is supposed to be educational and safe, and such language and behavior undermine that purpose. I will not hesitate to drop you if I feel like it is necessary

If anything is unclear/you have additional questions, feel free to email me at tmgill719@gmail.com

Aditya goel The Quarry Lane School

Maeve Goldman Bergen Debate Club

Sayam Goyal Power Speakers Unlimited

Ty Gribble HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Charles Guo Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Aditya Gupta Atlas

Last changed on Sun March 31, 2024 at 11:56 AM EDT

Debated PF at Bergen County Debate Club and Millburn High School (NJ) for a pretty long time so I guess I am a "flow" judge

TL;DR

Ultra Tech>Truth because debate is a game
I support logical responses in rebuttal. They don't have evidence to support it is not an argument
If you are going above 800 words please send speech doc. Even if you aren't reading fast a speech doc would still be nice. Don't worry I won't steal your case :)
No new evidence or arguments in FF besides weighing analysis
Speaking of weighing PLEASE weigh it makes it so much easier for me and mitigates the chances you will be "judge screwed"
No post-rounding please it won't affect my decision
Political and social correctness kinda overrated just be able to win the subsequent Kritik

Add me to the email chain pls

adityaguptaglenwood@gmail.com

Its the Bernie Sanders pfp don't question (I don't think i'm a socialist it just looks funny :P)

LONG paradigm - credit to Alec Boulton for debating like a legend and involuntarily donating his paradigm since this is basically an exact replica of his paradigm with a couple of changes.

-General-

I'll vote on anything. Tech > truth, "tabula rasa" for what you mean by that

Make these rounds interesting. Run your wacky args, go on some off type beat, do whatever you think other judge's won't like you doing. Debate is a game, have fun with it - PLEASE PLEASE do this if there is a round where you want to run your "meme case" or something I hope its mine. Just make sure its not a bubble round because I can't guarantee you will win.

Don't flow cross - if you want me to flow it bring it up in your next speech

If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez who says M4A grows the economy" isn't one either. I don't need the card name, I need warrants.

Please don't take 10 years to find your evidence its extremely suspicious, slows down the round a ton, and is a really bad norm. If you can't find it after like 5 minutes just ask your opponents to drop the card from the round or something I won't drop you.

If I am on a lay panel and you go for the lay adaptation I can attempt to become more of a lay judge so its more fair.

-Traditional-

Dump if you want, but at least be responsive and flush out your warrants

First summary doesn't need to extend dropped defense.

Weigh. "Probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing. Clear up mess, I'm not voting on unarticulated implications.

Speech time is speech time.

Don't make your off-time roadmap a separate speech (its supposed to be around 10 seconds ex: our case, their case, weighing)

Terminalize your impacts.

Collapse.

-Progressive-

Anything is fine, just be clear with offs and actually make warrants, don't assume I'll vote on your short cuts.

Think through what you're doing.

Go as may off as you want against WILLING teams. If the other team didn't explicitly agree to have a prog debate and they make any abuse claim, I'll drop you. The exception is in-round violations that require theory, but in that case at least be clear pre-speech about what you want to do. REALLY IMPORTANT FOR NOVICE ROUNDS

Warrant out kritiks please

For pf kids: Paraphrase and don't disclose if you wan't. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly bias and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read because they think they're doing something good. It's sad to see.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.

If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence will be needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. But the evidence element is often just a constraint put on debaters by big school judges with freshman-prep-lines that can pump out a billion cards in a day as a way of maintaining an edge. Use your brain, it's a good one. Evidence is very nice, and research is important (I was a research first debater), but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

-Speaks-

If you care about this, here are some things you can do to up your speaks that aren't mentioned already throughout the paradigm:

1- make me or your opponents laugh

2- play good music

3- dap up your opponents (sportsmanship!)

4- be nice

5- don't steal prep time, it's always obvious

6- Be cool with your opponents

Benjamin Hagwood BL Debate

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:12 AM PDT

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
Be rude (-.5 point)
Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

Franz Hill Bob Lanier Middle School

Lisa Howard ModernBrain

Erik Hsu ADL

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 9:42 AM EDT

Taipei American '24 | Georgetown '28 (he/him)

I competed in PF for four years at Taipei American School, and I’m one of their assistant coaches now.

Create an email chain, label it clearly (Tournament Name - Round # - Team X v. Team Y), and add emh208@georgetown.edu and taipeidocz@gmail.com.

To speed things up, send speech docs (as a Word file or in the body of the email) with all cut cards read before case and rebuttal.

TLDR: Tech > Truth. I see myself as a traditional flow judge - I vote on the least mitigated link into the best-weighed impact. A very big fan of strategic flow rounds and not a fan of progressive arguments.

Framework: I default to util unless told otherwise.

Speed: I can flow at relatively fast speeds, but I’m not a fan of incomprehensible spreading. I won't flow off your doc -- at most, I’ll look at your doc while you speak. This is still a speaking and communication event, so it’s your job to put your arguments on my flow. I’ll clear you if I can’t understand -- also respect your opponents if they clear you.

Progressive: I’m not the right judge for theory, K’s, or anything that’s not substance. That being said, I have a basic understanding of how to evaluate theory and Ks because I had to debate such arguments. I will evaluate theory if there’s real in-round abuse, but my threshold for that is high. Bottom line -- I can try to evaluate a round with 6 flows in it, but both you and I would probably not want me to.

Evidence: I’m fine with paraphrasing, but making up or miscutting evidence is an easy way to lose my ballot. I only look at evidence if someone tells me to look at it. You also can't just say "check X evidence, it's bad" -- you have to tell me what the specific indict is and why I should cross it off my flow.

Technical Specifics:

If it's dropped in a speech, it's conceded (besides constructive/case). That means second rebuttal must frontline both offense AND defense.

Arguments I’m voting on need to be in case or rebuttal, summary, AND final focus.

Defense is not sticky. You need to extend defense from case or rebuttal through summary AND final focus.

15-second grace period for all speeches. Hold your opponents accountable.

Crossfire is binding, but you have to bring up concessions in a speech.

Arguments are not extended if their warrants are not extended with them. If it’s the argument I’m voting on, extend all parts of the argument (uniqueness, link, AND impact).

If you want my ballot, you should probably:

Signpost – tell me where you’re going so my flow looks like how you want it to.

Warrant – give me clear reasons why what you’re saying is true.

Frontline – explain why your arguments are true despite your opponent’s responses to them. It doesn’t matter if your argument is important if you’re not winning it. After you’re winning your argument, you should…

Weigh – whether it’s comparing competing warrants, pieces of evidence, links, or impacts, tell me why I should prefer what you’re saying over what your opponents are saying. If it comes to it, metaweighing is equally as necessary. Expect intervention if you don’t tell me what I should prioritize.

Collapse - instead of going for everything, pick good arguments in the back half and…

Implicate - tell me why the arguments you’ve made win you the round.

Speaks:

Make me laugh and you get 30 speaks. Debate is competitive, but have fun with it.

If you’re not funny, I also love smart analytics, meta-weighing, and prereqs.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round. I’m also a fan of post-rounding if you don’t understand/agree with the RFD.

Amy Hu Potomac Debate Academy

Xinchuan Huang The Quarry Lane School

Liangston Jamesou Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Benjamin Jensen The Harker School

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 7:05 PM MDT

Hey everyone!

He/his pronouns

TLDR; Debate well, run any and all arguments you believe in, be nice, respectful and have a good time. Debate is supposed to be a fun activity. People often forget that.

More Specific

I did PF and LD throughout high school, and did Parliamentary and British Parliamentary in college.

I am fine with just about any argument you can run. Clearly explain links, impacts, and solvency. I think Theory, k's, topicality and just about anything else you can run is perfectly fine and can keep debates kind of fresh. If you like an argument, and run it well, chances are I'll like it too.
However, if you are running theory, K's, or topicality in PF you will have a harder time because every time I've seen these in a PF round they have been missing key parts mostly due to the short times of PF. I may still vote for it, but consider what types of arguments are best based on your time constraints.

More basic debates can also be great. Make sure you clash and address the other teams case. Find ways to create offense and don't spend all your time on defense.

Speed is fine, but try to be as clear as possible. In our unfortunate digital circumstances there are more ways to miss what you're saying than there used to be so I think erring on the side of clarity is always better.

I don't flow CX. If there is something important that happens in CX that you deem is massively important to your case please bring it up in your future speeches.

The things I want to see in a debate are typically very clear links, impacts and weighing. You need to tell me exactly how I should vote and why. Debate rounds are always clearer and have more clash when each side can very easily explain their link chain to the impacts, and why those are more important whether it be magnitude, timeframe, scope, or probability.

Finally, just be nice to each other. Debate is a game and I think it should be fun. Be funny, add jokes, do whatever you need to help your arguments but also have fun during the round.

If there is anything I didn't cover here feel free to ask me before our round starts!

GG Jones BL Debate

Padmaja Kadiyala Ivy Bridge Academy

Yasmine Kahtane Bergen Debate Club

Srinivas Kalbhavi Joaquin Miller Middle School

Last changed on Thu February 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM PDT

I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.

What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:

Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).
Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.
Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.
Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.
Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.
Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.
Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.

Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.

Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.

I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.

Jacob Kaminski Trinity Preparatory School

Last changed on Thu March 14, 2024 at 4:05 AM CDT

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
Win the flow=win the round
Presumption =neg
Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
K debate is even better
Defense needs to be extended
I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

-If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

- All of the above applies here as well. There are a few extra points that may be helpful.

- I will always evaluate framing first, so long as there are competing positions. If values are the same, just collapse and move on. These can be either traditional or more progressive/kritical frameworks.

- For the NR/2AR, don't go for everything- there simply is not enough time and debates are not lost by making strategic decisions to go for one or two arguments instead of extending the entire case.

- I dont need voter issues- just go top down the AC and NC and win your offense/extend defense.

- Impact calc is necessary- PLEASE weigh your impacts. I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round.

Manikandan Kanagarajan Ivy Bridge Academy

Muzzi Khan The Harker School

Padmaja Khulbe Joaquin Miller Middle School

Christine Kim Potomac Debate Academy

Crystal Ko BL Debate

Amit Kulkarni Ivy Bridge Academy

Hari Kumar Joaquin Miller Middle School

Nelan Lala Charlotte Latin School

Gloria Lau Joaquin Miller Middle School

Sarita Lella Ivy Bridge Academy

Ning Li Joaquin Miller Middle School

Yu Li Potomac Debate Academy

Christina Liu Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Thu July 7, 2022 at 9:34 AM EDT

hi!

i'm christina (she/her) and debated for wootton pf. ask me for clarification before the round starts.

VBIPHL: Do not read progressive arguments against teams that clearly cannot engage with them in order to win. My ballot/your speaks will be reflective of your poor decision and you will be upset with the result that I input.

misc:

1. i'll evaluate any argument you can think of, however, in the case where the safety of a debater is compromised in the room (be it any -ist argument or a lack of TW on a sensitive topic) i will intervene. tab has the option to specify pronouns for a reason, misgendering is not ok.

2. speed is ok but sacrificing clarity is not ok.

3. probably won't call for ev, imo a bit interventionist unless someone explicitly asks me to and the round is unresolvable.

4. i have a very bad poker face so if i dont/do like something you'll know.

5. i am most receptive to substance and i will do my best to judge as technically as i can.

round:

1. second rebuttal must frontline turns - conceded turns/contentions in rebuttal have 100% strength of link.

2. DAs/ADVs/offensive OVs are fine in second rebuttal to an extent but i have a higher threshold for contextualization/warranting/weighing/etc.

3. DLs must be conceded in the following speech (either 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary) but also must be explained.

4. defense is not sticky 4 first summary.

5. i appreciate good extensions. i do not care about card names. extend warrants with case.

weighing:

1. weighing ideally should start in rebuttal. i'm not evaluating new weighing in final focus, including first final.

2. probability impact weighing doesn't exist.

3. metaweigh/comparative weighing -- if there is none i'll probably prioritize pre-reqs/link-ins/co-ops -- if there is none of that i will just count how many weighing mechanisms there are.

prog:

i will do my best to judge to your standards. i dislike progressive debate so please only read it if there is justifiable abuse in the round (paraphrasing/disclosure dont count).

1. general defaults (no RVIs, CI > reasonability, drop arg over debater, only if teams don't tell me what to do).

2. do not read theory against teams who clearly cannot engage with it (novices) i can tell and my ballot/your speaks will reflect that >:(.

4. little to no exp w K's, therefore K lit needs to be accessible -- you should also be extending K's/shells more rigorously than case bc it may be harder for me/others to grasp initially (especially if they are not topical).

5. no tricks.

i'm most receptive to substance but i'll do my best to evaluate whatever you read.

debate in a way that makes you happy and comfortable, post-rounding is fine, good luck!

Gisela Liu The Golden State Academy None

Jingjing Liu Bob Lanier Middle School

Monica Lozano Bob Lanier Middle School

Jiangbin Luo The Golden State Academy

Vishwas Manral The Golden State Academy

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 9:12 AM PDT

General

- Speak as fast as you want, but try not to spread. The words should be clear

- Focus on understanding of the topic and the depth at which one understands a topic

- I can time the speeches but prefer you please time yourselves

- Add me to the email chain: vishwas.manral@gmail.com

- Be respectful - don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

Flay/treat me more lay
Send me your cases

Arguments/ Debate etc.

I don't like progressive debate at all (No Tshells, K's, CPs, tricks, etc.) I will probably end up dropping you if you run it. If you do end up going for it -- please explain to me clearly why it should be a voting issue at the end of the debate.

Squirrelly arguments are ok but you need to actually explain your link VERY clearly or you can't access your impact.

I love when people signpost; it helps me follow along with what you are saying in your speech.

Please make sure that you can your provide evidence to your opponents. If you fail to do so, the argument is dropped.

I prefer off-time roadmaps but keep them brief.

Dropped args should not be brought back into the flow, but point out when your opponents' arguments are dropped. You know the rest of the rules, so please follow them.

As far as framework goes, I am fine with anything as long as you are following your framework. Debating against framework- if the opposing team provides a better framework that works and proves why the other team's framework is irrelevant or etc. then I will consider that. If you run SV you need to tell me why I should prefer that over any default util FW.

You run the show, so show me why you should win this debate. Impact weighing is greatly valued.

I won't flow cross (unless they contradict themselves), but if something big happens, tell me in your speech.

I am fine with disclosing cases as long as both teams are ok with it. If not, then please do not be forceful. (No disclo/para theory)

Speaks usually from 28+

Good luck, be kind, happy debating!

Syon Mansur Potomac Debate Academy

Chad Meadows Ascent Academy

Last changed on Tue September 3, 2024 at 2:52 PM CDT

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU competes in NFA-LD and CEDA/NDT

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

High School Topic Exposure

I am not a primary argument coach or participant at Summer institute for high school policy debate, and do not have in-depth knowledge of IP topic trends.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the Energy topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

Though I don't feel particularly dogmatic about the plan/no plan debate, my preference is that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan and the debate should be about the desirability of that plan. I do not enjoy clash debates, and in those rounds HEAVILY appreciate some novelty/pen time/judge instruction PLEASE.

I have few policy preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Priti Mehta Bob Lanier Middle School

parth misra Georgetown Day School

Amy Mo BL Debate

Chloe Moon BC Academy

Anais Nam BC Academy

chhaya Narvekar Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Sandhya Nayar Dougherty Valley Bridge

Sahana Nellian The Quarry Lane School

Kim Nguy Redwood MS

Panayiotis Papaioannou Bergen Debate Club

Jasmine Park BC Academy

Curren Patel Ivy Bridge Academy Korea

Sachi Patel The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 11:11 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Sachi (she/her) and I did Public Forum at Quarry Lane for 4 years on the national circuit. I am now a freshman in college and coach for Quarry Lane. Add me to the email chain: spatel0275@gmail.com

-- UPDATE FOR JV POLICY, GBX/BERK --

I'm familiar with policy but don't have a super extensive background in it. I recommend using my PF paradigm below to understand my judging preferences -- the main principles are the same (weigh well, extend properly, send evidence promptly/adhere to prep time, etc.). For specifics, see the first half of this paradigm.

-- Public Forum --

**Send speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal BEFORE the speech. I have more tolerance for less experienced debaters, but if you're in JV/varsity and aren't doing this, your speaks will most likely be getting docked.

Tech > Truth

Good with speed as long as it's clear, if you’re going >250 wpm just send a doc. And please SIGNPOST.

Frontline in second rebuttal → If you don’t frontline defense on an argument you’re going for and your opponents extend that defense, I will evaluate it as conceded.

WEIGH!! very very very important. Make it comparative + the earlier the better, I look to the weighing debate first when evaluating rounds. Hearing smart, well-warranted weighing (clever link-ins, prereqs, short circuits, etc.) makes me happy.

Collapse if it is strategic (most of the time it is). This means collapsing on your own contentions/case args but also collapsing on responses on your opponent's case (Quality > Quantity). Note** I am fine with you dropping case and going for turns on their case. It's fun if you can pull it off well (please weigh).

GOOD EXTENSIONS MATTER. Fully extend case args w/ uniqueness, links, impacts, etc. and responses should be well implicated. This can be as simple as pre-writing case extensions and reading them in the back-half, but for some reason it is still poorly done, which is sad :(

Any offense you’re going for in final focus must be in summary. Defense is not sticky.

I don't really listen to cross, won't evaluate anything from cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

Feel free to postround me -- I think it's educational and am more than happy to elaborate on any part of my decision.

Progressive Args:

I will try my best! Generally lean towards disclosure good, paraphrasing bad but I won’t hack for either. I can probably evaluate a decent theory debate … anything outside of that realm run at your own risk.

Speaks:

Strategic round decisions = good speaks !

Not sending speech docs, stealing prep, being disrespectful = bad speaks :(

Finally, this goes without saying but don’t read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because they WILL NOT be evaluated and you will most likely get terrible speaks/get dropped.

Have fun!!!

Donny Peters Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:39 PM EDT

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Kitiny Phumchun Honor Academy

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 1:38 AM PDT

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thangam Pillai Joaquin Miller Middle School

Ananya Pinnamaneni Dougherty Valley Bridge None

Pallob Poddar ModernBrain

NP Polanco Hire

Shriya Punreddy CMS Southlake Junior Debate

Dharma Rajesh Power Speakers Unlimited

Vivek Rao Charlotte Latin School

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 11:11 AM EDT

about me:

nat circuit PFer, World Schools(x2 nsda quarters), charlotte latin school '23, emory '27

viveksairao@gmail.com

FOR LD

I have done a couple styles of debate but mainly pf
Please treat me like a parent judge and give me a very trad ld rnd – I'm okay with speed but I'd prefer no spreading

For PF:

Summary:

Treat me as a flay judge
To get my ballot you need to: a) Extend a clear case narrative(not just a bundle of cards), b) Do the comparitive and explain what both worlds look like don't j give me weighing jargon, c) Walk me through the flow in an organized manner and tell me how to vote

the basics:

- Weighing should start in summary, and I likely wont flow it if you just list buzz words, actually explain the comparisons you are trying to establish

– Not neccesarilly tech>truth. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but know I will have inherent biasses against silly args. If you are running such args you will need clear warranting for me to buy them, and exceptions made if opponents read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

– fine with speed but please keep it reasonable and try to maintain tremendous poise as otherwise i prolly wont understand, if you're spreading(which I don't reccomend you do)email me the doc at viveksairao@gmail.com

– Collapsing early is encouraged preferably as early as 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you want me to vote on should be in summary and final focus

– defense isn't sticky for either team, so make sure you're extending any defense you want on the flow

– carded warrant with ev. comparision >>> carded warrant > uncarded warrant > carded unwarranted empirics. my threshold for accepting extensions also follows this rule

– i'll call for evidence either if you tell me to or if i think it's sketchy. Have CUT CARDS ready to share, you don't wanna be asking opponents to command f something

– cross is sometimes pointless but a great place to boost speaks by rightly spotting questions, but obviously concessions in cross are binding though, just remind me of them in the next speech

– read k's and theory if you want, just know I won't be the best at evaluating them.

also please read disclosure or paraphrase theory. it will give me so much joy to drop you.

Aleisha Readye Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:02 PM CDT

I may seem like I am not paying attention but I am listening. I am not very good at small talk so if you have a question just ask me.

To the point:

I am very much a progressive traditionalist when it comes to Public Forum.

What does that mean?

Yes, I believe that parents should be 100% comfortable judging public forum debate at all levels. It is your job as a debater to adapt and NOT the other way around.

Fast talking is fine. Don’t spread. Creative Arguments, I am listening. You are not actually topical, but you are in the direction of the topic, YES, I am still listening.

FRAMING IS THE BEST PART OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE. How your team frames the round should be strategic and work in your team’s advantage. A team should only concede framework if they actually believe that they can win the debate under the other team’s framework. Otherwise, defend your framework. If they call you out for “abusive framework” tell me why it’s not and why I should still be voting under it.

While it’s not mandatory, if you are speaking second you should address your opponent’s rebuttal. I don’t expect you to split your time in some specific way, but at the end of the day a speech did happen just moments before yours and you kind of need to engage with it. (Translated: Must respond to your opponent’s case and defend your own)

Rebuttals: cover their case in the context of yours. cross applications are going to be key to get me to sign the ballot in your favor.

I do not flow cross, but I am listening and PRAYING that all the cool things that take place during this time find a place in speeches. Otherwise, all the sweating, panting, and exchanging of evidence was pointless.

BOTTOM LINE:

If it isn't in Rebuttal, it can't be in Summary. If it isn't in Summary, you can't go for it in Final Focus.

Oh ya, I am bad at speaker points.

As it relates to LD -

Fast talking is acceptable but I cannot deal with spreading for extended periods of time, flow, and be objective. My mind drifts whenever people speak to me in the same cadence for extended periods of time.

Spreading: My brain can’t handle it which is why I generally avoid judging TOC Circuit Varsity LD debates. I do this because I agree that spreading is a skill and I understand that since you are on the circuit you would probably like to have the opportunity to do so. However, if you get the wonderful privilege of having me judge you, I will expect you to do a few things to enhance my involvement in the round. I ask that you not practice spreading in front of me.

“I hear everything when in sensory overload. But it’s not as if I can hear what is being said; rather it is just many, many sounds, unfiltered and loud. It feels like sounds are coming at me from every direction. Lights from all directions also seem to glare in my eyes. Sensory overload is horrible.” — Laura Seil Ruszczyk

I evaluate the framework first. I prefer debates that are topical. That said, I think on most of the resolutions for LD there are lots of topical discussions debaters can engage about race and identity matters.

If they say they are in the direction of the topic and clearly articulate how they are, I would probably agree that they are probably pretty topical. However, I do think T is a real argument.

I prefer students to use cx for questions and answer exchanges, not for extra prep.

Matthew Reymann VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Wajiha rizvi Bergen Debate Club

Last changed on Tue September 19, 2023 at 7:12 PM EDT

Hi :)

I'm Wajiha. (she/her) I'm a freshman at Lehigh U. You can call me by my name, however, during speeches I expect to be addressed as the judge. I have around 6 years on the national circuit in PF.

Please at least read the bolded parts of my paradigm before round and let me know if you have any questions :) Contact through wajiharizvi321@gmail.com

Please do not bring up a K, but theory isn’t bad as long as it’s well warranted. Definitely a good voter. Note: If you are running anything progressive, please email me a couple minutes before the round with your argument, an explanation of it. Also, please send me a case doc if you are running anything progressive. (That should be a given either way).

· add me to email chains

· Tech >> truth

· No ___ism

· Stay in speech times, won't flow anything overtime, however, I will let you finish your sentence.

· Prefer that you time yourselves and hold your opponents accountable. If that’s not possible, just let me know before round and I’ll time for you.

·I do not care for roadmaps unless its summary. Only give me a roadmap in rebuttal if you are second (tell me when you are going to frontline). Actually, Summary is the most important speech to me in a round (I'm generally a first speaker). If you mess up summary, your chances of winning are slim.

· I may ask for evidence.

· STAY RESPECTFUL. no disrespect of any kind will be tolerated.

· If you aren't confident in your own arguments, I won't be either.

~ Winning ~

· Anything I vote on needs a WARRANT in summary and final focus. You need to explicitly extend your warrant-link-impact for me to vote off of an argument (I need a clear narrative).

· Be comparative - show me you understand and consider their points, why yours are stronger, why they can be right but you still win. Don't just tell me how you outweigh on scope, magnitude, irreversibility, etc. If you do, please explain how exactly they apply.

· Clash with your opponents by refuting their central claims and focusing on why you win disagreements between your arguments.

· NO WEIGHING = NO WINNING, but that should be a given. I like to hear you start weighing as early in round as possible (rebuttal is never too early).

~ Preferences ~

· PLEASE COLLAPSE, I'm begging you

· 2nd rebuttal should frontline or it's dropped, though 1st summary still needs to extend dropped arguments.

· Nothing in cross will be evaluated unless you explicitly bring it up in a subsequent speech. Also, cross is valuable. Please don't waste it.

· I appreciate but don't require slower speaking, erring on more explanation. I can generally take speed as long as you speak clearly, but if something doesn't end up on my flow because you are going too fast, it will not be evaluated. If you are debating my first round of the morning, I strongly recommend you speak on the slightly slower side to ensure everything ends up on my flow.

· I think introducing yourself in speech is unnecessary and wastes speech time. If you like to do it go ahead, but I will be very unsympathetic if you go overtime. The same goes for obvious definitions (e.g. should) unless they add some kind of substance/are brought up later in the debate.

~ Speaks ~

- I will usually start from a 28 and bring it up and/or reduce from there. I will state explicitly why you gained/lost points.

- Lose speaks by going significantly overtime (more than 15s/finishing your last sentence), being rude/offensive, or saying you don't have any questions in cross.

~ How to GAIN speaks ~

- physically turn while turning an argument = +.5

- guess what my zodiac sign is correctly = +.5

- auto 30s if u give me a constructive, rebuttal, AND summary doc (all 3 for the auto 30).

I'll usually disclose and give brief feedback. Don't hesitate to ask questions either. Also since you've already read all of this, you should go follow my insta; @wajihahrizvi :))

Have funnnn

Mai Rubin Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Thu July 27, 2023 at 11:42 PM PDT

Updated for April 2023.

Tabroom has the option to specify pronouns for a reason. If a debater specifies certain pronouns by which they identify in a live update, ensure you know them. I have ZERO tolerance for deliberate misgendering because it makes the round unsafe. If you object to this, strike me.

A note on content warnings: I have seen the proliferation of potentially triggering arguments being tagged with content warnings before rounds. This is great. If someone doesn't read such a warning, I would be extremely receptive to claims about why that should mean I drop the debater immediately. However, I notice the execution of such warnings leaves much to be desired in some cases. A CW should have three components:

A. A clear indication of the general topic which will be discussed and whether it is graphic or not.

B. A google form wherein the competitors and judges in the round can anonymously indicate discomfort. Do not ask for someone to say whether the content is triggering or not aloud, it is extremely traumatizing and difficult for survivors of trauma to have to out themselves for the sake of your debate argument. Asking for this is immoral and at best will be met by me tanking your speaks and at worst lead to me dropping you immediately.

C. If someone does indicate discomfort, simply say you understand and will read a different argument. Do not pressure or guilt trip anyone for being unwilling to discuss these arguments. Regardless of how important these issues are to debate discourse, safety is definitely more important.

Put me on the email chain: rubinmai@gmail.com.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible, feel free to email me before the round and I will do my best.

TL;DR: Tech>truth, first speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense unless it's frontlined by second speaking rebuttal, in which case you have to respond to frontlines if you wanna go for it in FF. Second rebuttal does not have to frontline defense, but does have to frontline turns or disads. Defense isn't terminal unless you tell me why. I've been scarcely involved in debate for a few years and am rusty, adapt accordingly. Don't be more tech than you are. See point 5 if you're reading an anticapitalist argument.

Hello. I did PF for three years at Boca Raton High School ('17) and currently coach/judge circuit PF. I went to FSU until spring 2021 and am currently a third year law student at ASU. I’ve been around the national circuit, so I’ve seen my fair share of debating.

I have been much less involved in debate since 2021, however. Take all of the components of this paradigm with the caveat that I might have issues keeping up with overwhelmingly tech rounds due to being rusty.

I disclose, so if you have any questions about the round, be it the specifics of the flow or your performance as a speaker, feel free to ask me either during the disclosure or after the round if time permits on my part. If you have any questions about my paradigm or an RFD, feel free to ask before or after round (tournament permitting).

As for the paradigm:

1. Debate is a game (unless you compellingly argue otherwise in-round), call me tech>truth. I'll vote on any warranted argument insofar as it isn't unambiguously, maliciously offensive. In the latter case, you'll get an L0-20. I think intervention assassinates pedagogy and fairness because the round is decided by factors outside the control of debaters. To minimize intervention, I will presume the status quo in a scenario in a policy topic where: A. no one is accessing offense, or B. both teams are accessing offense without literally any analysis as to which args are more important and it is impossible for me to resolve the debate without intervening. In short, I presume in pretty much any scenario where it is impossible for me to resolve the round without having to introduce any of my own analysis that wasn’t in it. DO NOT ABUSE THAT. I presume first on non-policy resolutions. On that note, I believe defense is NOT terminal unless you tell me it is and why. I presume defense is mitigatory by default, and give very little weight to it if it is not implicated. This ensures people don't lose the round on presumption because of one piece of mitigation that was dropped and lacked implication.

2. First speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense, unless that defense is covered in second rebuttal, in which case, it must be frontlined in first summary and extended if you intend to go for it in FF. Likewise, if you're second speaking and frontline in second rebuttal and your opponents drop the frontline in first summary, you can extend the frontline straight to final focus without mentioning it in summary. I do not require second rebuttal frontlining for defense, but it is required for turns. However, it is probably strategic to do because defense is a lot harder to access if frontlined early. Beyond that, no new in the two. That includes new weighing in the 2FF, unless there was no prior weighing. Any argument must be responded to in the speech after it is introduced or else it is conceded, with the exception of first rebuttal defense that is not frontlined in second rebuttal. However, I do believe.

3. Regarding new applications of certain args, the way I handle them is that the part of the arg itself that was read before cannot be responded to if dropped. However, the new application can be responded to because it was never read before in the round and the other team had no way of knowing they needed to frontline. Too many teams keep pulling this super sus strat of reading entirely new applications of frontlines or defense to dropped args in the backhalf and reading entirely new implications that weren't in rebuttal. This is effectively a new argument because this articulation of the argument wasn't earlier in the round and the other team couldn't respond to it. There are two exceptions. Those are if 1FF is answering new arguments from second summary and/or if 2FF is refuting those answers. Second, if you're making a theoretical argument about some abuse committed late in the round. If it's the latter, you better spend a VERY significant chunk of your FF on the argument and warranting why the level of abuse is big enough to outweigh the fairness skew of an arg that is new in the two.

4. The only new frameworks that I feel comfortable with being introduced after summary, absent some argument telling me otherwise, are voters and reasons to prefer/weighing frameworks. Clarity of link weighing is fake news 99% of the time, I am not fooled by new attempts to read defense in FF.

5. Cool w/ progressive arguments if done properly and am tangentially familiar with stock K lit. I notice a lot of judges try to ascribe specific purposes to these types of args, like only being for checking back abuse. I think this is intervention. YOU decide and argue in round what the role of a progressive arg is and how that affects the round's outcome. Also, tell me why your args/standards are voters, especially for theory/T. Disclaimer: I have a college policy background, but a limited one, and I was also bad at it. If you're someone reading these types of args, I suggest dumbing them down by spending more time explaining/implicating them.

(NEW AS OF APRIL 2023) As an addition to the above, I have become more versed in anticapitalist literature since taking some distance from debate. With this, I have also grown disillusioned with how a lot of PFers read arguments based on that literature such as capitalism kritiks. Saying I should reject something solely because "it perpetuates capitalism" is oftentimes meaningless in the greater scheme of things within anticapitalist theory. That's not to say I won't vote on those args, because I will if they are accessed and weighed. But it is to say that I have an unavoidable internal bias against that variant of anticapitalist argumentation. However, I love capitalism arguments in PF when they're accompanied by rock solid uniqueness (i.e. reasons why capitalism is gonna collapse and the aff prevents/delays that, or reasons why the aff causes capitalism to collapse). I will do my best to restrain this bias, but it is there, and it is fair you be made aware of it.

6. Good w/ speed but notify me if you're gonna outright spread so I can flow on laptop. Send speech docs if spreading or I will not be happy. Slow on tags/authors/analytics. I will clear you.

7. Issues in CX need to be mentioned in a speech for me to evaluate them.

8. If a link turn links to a different impact than the argument it's turning, that impact MUST be weighed for me to evaluate it because these types of arguments don't inherently prevent or hijack impacts, meaning it doesn't function as defense either. Treat it like an impact from case.

9. If a card is disputed throughout the round or has something in it that spikes/responds to another arg, please extend the card name in summary and FF for clarity and signposting.

10. Please warrant new cards/arguments in summary, don't just read a claim that only ever gets warranted in FF.

11. Please weigh because it makes the round clearer and easier for me to judge. Line-by-line is important, but weighing is absolutely necessary. Most teams I've judged haven't weighed, or done so poorly. Weighing doesn't just entail saying why your link/impact is big. Tell me why it's comparatively greater than everything else in the round. Arg interaction is key. Clarity of impact/link weighing is fake news 90% of the time just because people throw those buzzwords at me and just say “we outweigh because our arg is true.” Just saying you outweigh because you access an arg is not weighing. Strength of link is fine with very good COMPARATIVE warranting rather than being a poorly veiled attempt to read new defense in FF.

12. Absent being told otherwise, I default to evaluating the round on several levels. In descending order: framework, comparative weighing, weighing, offense access. I'm open to some theoretical alternative to evaluating the round if it's proposed to me, I.e. procedural args like theory coming first.

13. If you plan on conceding an arg for strategic purposes, I like that because it’s smart. That said, such can be abusive if used at a point where it is nigh impossible for the other team to respond. I do not wanna intervene on this issue, so: it is fair to make strategic concessions, but only in the speech immediately after those args are made. For example, if someone reads terminal link defense alongside a ton of link turns in first rebuttal, your concession should be in second rebuttal. I won’t take this into account by default. This only comes into play if you argue why it’s abusive. If this happens and you do not make an arg about it, I evaluate it normally. I am VERY receptive to theory arguments on this issue, even in the final focus if and ONLY IF the abuse in question happened right before it.

14. As an extension of the above, I don't enter the round with any preconceptions about certain args being abusive. There are no abusive args unless you: A. tell me why the arg is abusive (most people are blippy on this), and B. why that means I shouldn't evaluate them, preferably grounded by some standard like education or fairness (often entirely absent). Or you could read theory, which is fine by me.

15. I tend to evaluate evidence as arguments, unless some arg in round is made that I should eval them otherwise or there is REALLY excessive abuse. That means a few things:

A. Just as I only evaluate arguments as you present them to me, I only eval ev as you present it to me. This means that the claim you present from the ev is how I eval it, and if I call the card and see some other application of the ev that wasn't articulated in round, I'm not gonna consider it.

B. I prefer not to call for cards unless I am told to. In fact, I ABSOLUTELY HATE having to do evidence comparison myself. Please do it for me, it likely won't end well for you if it comes down to this. There are exceptions to this rule for cards I deem important enough to call, and I will admit that metric is somewhat arbitrary. I think, however, that most would agree that such arbitrariness is fine if it leads to accountability. If I call your ev due to an indict, and the specific parts of the ev in question are problematic, my default response is to just drop the ev to minimize intervention. This, of course, can change if your opponents make some argument as to why this should impact the outcome of the round. I also might just call cards for clarification.

C. The only occasion in which I drop a team with the lowest speaks tab will allow for misrepresenting ev is if it is REALLY terrible and malicious, and the abuse is obviously super extreme, i.e. fabricating ev, distortion, or obvious clipping. I haven't had to do this in a round I myself have judged yet, so my threshold for this is very high, don't be alarmed.

16. The Jan 2019 topic has taught me that there are some parts of economics that I do not understand. Explain economics to me in round like I'm five, for both our sakes.

17. I evaluate embedded clash to an extremely limited extent in the absence of analysis/implication in the round itself, and I only do this when it has to be done to resolve the round. My standard for evalling embedded clash is that if the analysis/extension you read is 100% there and just not signposted in its application or is on the wrong part of the flow, I eval it. By 100% there, I mean I could literally cut and paste that verbatim statement on to the arg it clashes with and have zero issue. If I can't literally just add the phrase "On this argument..." to the analysis/extension that's there, I won't eval embedded clash in the absence of analysis. PLEASE do the analysis properly, I hate evalling embedded clash and your speaks will suffer.

18. In terms of theory, I default to competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater, open to otherwise if argued in round. Likewise, if you read a theory shell instead of a PF-y argument about why a certain thing is abusive and shouldn't be evaluated, I will hold it to the standard of a theory shell. Extend the interp verbatim. The shell line-by-line doesn't need to be extended in rebuttal.

Speaker Points

To me, speaks aren't about presentation. I tend to give speaks based on one's strategic decisionmaking and argumentation in the context of a round. Cool strategic moves and good efficiency (especially in the backhalf) are the key to my heart. I’m not a fan of giving speaks based off stylistic performance, mostly because those tend to be informed by some pretty bad norms that disadvantage non-cishet white men. If your strategy is good, I don’t care how you speak, I will give you good speaks.

Here’s the breakdown:

30: You made the best possible strategic decisions and arguments in the context of the round.

29-29.5: You made smart strategic decisions and arguments. Only a few things you could have done better.

28-28.5: Solid argumentation and middle of the line strategic decisionmaking. What I give to the majority of decent rounds I judge.

27-27.5: Passable argumentation with several mistakes, and a noticeable absence of strategic decisionmaking. Round was way more unclear than it should be, and improvements are definitely needed.

26-26.5: Below average. Major mistakes or problems with the debate, definitely needs immediate improvement.

25-25.5: Very below average. Completely mishandled the round. Significant work needed on how the debate is handled.

<25: You probably said something quite offensive or tried to spread cards without sending a speech doc.

Ashraf S The Golden State Academy

Jonah Sah Poly Prep Middle School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 8:41 AM EDT

jonahpsah@gmail.com, put me on the chain and please send speech docs for case and rebuttal.

First year out, did PF for 8 years, semifinaled the prestigious 2018 middle school tournament of champions

I'm a flow judge, tech > truth etc. Everything said in a speech is true until someone says otherwise.

have fun/be funny; it's high school debate; I think rounds should be relaxed. that being said, I will do my best to take the round seriously. debate takes a lot of work and I know what it feels like to have judges who aren't trying their hardest, so I will do my best to match or exceed your effort.

Collapse (for your own good)

When deciding the round, I will look to the following: I'll evaluate weighing, then look if there is any extended offense being won off of the weighing, then to any other offense.

If it isn't in summary and final, I won't evaluate it (so extend case/whatever you're going for). Don’t just say “extend this argument/card,” you need to re-explain the argument/its warrants. I'm not really afraid to drop a team that is winning bc they screwed up their extensions. The one caveat is that I'm ok with the weighing debate unfolding kind of late: if there is new weighing in second summary, you can respond in first final.

Regarding speed: I can flow just about anything under 300 wpm if you are clear. A few caveats though: a) I won't flow off of a doc in PF unless I space out or something. I know that makes me kind of old-fashioned but as a wise man once told me, "this isn't an essay writing contest." If you ask before round, I will clear you so that you know exactly what I'm catching. b) SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS PLZZ like even in policy they do that, it barely takes more time

If it isn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, it's dropped. (This applies to offense and defense, but not weighing.)

It's not 2017, defense isn't sticky

cross is binding? obviously? what is the point otherwise? obviously bring up anything important in a speech. I will pay at least some attention to cross though so don't lie, it's kind of obvious

I don't care about presentation: wear whatever, be silly, swear if you want. this also means that the whole jostling-for-perceptual-dominance in cross stuff is unnecessary (in fact it kinda pisses me off). I'll give speaks based on how good the content of your speeches is, not how pretty you say it.

Unless evidence is a) going to decide the round and b) contested in a way that I can't resolve, I won't call or look at anything. I think evidence debates are the same as any other argument: something is true unless it is responded to. If someone indicts your ev, that indict is true until you say otherwise, and I'm not going to check it to make sure. The only time I will look at ev is if teams can't agree on facts about the evidence itself (eg. the date it was written, author quals, etc.).

An argument with evidence obviously carries more weight than one without, but I like when teams make a bunch of analytics, especially in rebuttal.

I'm ok with postrounding, if you disagree with my decision you don't have to dance around it with polite questions (as long as you aren't rude). It is entirely possible that I screw up a decision. I will say 2 things though: first, if I screw up it's probably at least partially on you. anything that can decide the round should be clearly laid out for me. second, you may convince me that I'm wrong, but that won't change anything. I can't change the ballot, so all that will happen is that I will feel kinda bad and you will still have lost. So by all means, go ahead and prove that I'm wrong, but it will only do so much for you.

FW: two thoughts: a) a group being underprioritized is not enough a reason to prioritize it: explain why there are fewer intervening actors or it leads to better real world policy etc. b) read it in case or rebuttal... I'm not gonna evaluate framing in summary, that's obviously so unfair.

Ks: I think Ks are awesome, I wrote/read some in high school (cap, securitization, orientalism). That being said, I was still in PF, so I'm not that familiar with most K lit. I also think Ks can be read kinda poorly, so make sure you have at least a link, impact and alt in your case (and that you extend them). It's pretty clear when people read args that they don't really understand themselves, and if you can't articulate your argument and I don't get it I won't vote for it.

theory: I will not lie. I find most theory rounds tedious and kind of boring and not that important. I learned a lot in debate, but I don't think I would have learned much more or less if everyone did or didn't disclose/paraphrase/whatever. That being said, I ended up having a lot of theory rounds, and I'm comfortable judging it. However, if anyone feels actively unsafe/uncomfortable, you don't have to whip out a shell: just tell me/message me on FB and I will stop the round.

I'm not a fan of reading progressive arguments on inexperienced kids -- it will not lead to better norms/interesting discourse, it's just kinda mean. If you are being a jerk I'll tank your speaks so just use your judgment. -Maya sachs

If you read dumb stuff (you know exactly what I mean) you're getting like 0 speaks. I just don't think friv theory/tricks/whatever are that funny, and beyond that I have no idea what benefit anyone gets from them.

shoutout to my boo thang george tiesi #thepartnership

30 speaks if you can name all 40 barbie movies from memory before round. no notes or anything. blindfolded. in order of release date. while spinning around in a circle. while balancing on one foot.

Subrata Saharoy Joaquin Miller Middle School

Ruhan Sahasi The Harker School

Veer Sahasi The Harker School

Vidya Sambasivan Brooks Debate Institute

Rohit Satish Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Srikar Satish Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 4:43 AM CDT

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

Theory (but not stupid and friv)
Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
Framing / Meta Weighing
I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
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)

Kate Selig Potomac Debate Academy None

Jainam Shah Bergen Debate Club

Sanket Shah Ivy Bridge Academy

Amrit Sharma The Quarry Lane School

Pallavi Sharma Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Prachi Sharma ModernBrain

Glenn Sheehan Potomac Debate Academy

Thadeus Hagan Smith Aurorae Young Academy

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 7:54 AM EDT

TL;DR

Be kind in all that you do.
I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.
I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.
I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.
Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.
Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.
For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), there's no such thing as a "docket nomination," you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

Farhan Sodiq Debate Go

Derek Song Del Mar Montessori School

Last changed on Sat July 6, 2024 at 8:00 AM PDT

for outreach

i havent touched debate since TOC and dk anything about the topic so maybe slow down a little

tldr;

PF for 3 years, tech > truth

pf speed is fine but send docs, be clear and slow down on tags

I will vote off of anything as long as it is explained well and resolved against defense

be nice, debate is a game so we should probably try to have some fun

fronthalf

2nd rebuttal must frontline or else its conceded but I'm lenient with x-apps and new implications in 2nd sum

please impact out and weigh your turns or they literally just don't matter on the flow

good analytics beat bad cards but PLEASE give warrants/examples as to why they are true, saying "this is so unlikely" is definitely not responsive

ev analysis is goated

backhalf

please weigh but quality > quantity of mechanisms

don't read blippy pre-reqs and link ins and please explain why you have bigger links than they do

refer to specific pieces of evidence rather than vague ideas

if you want me to read any evidence you should explicitly say so

do not expect me to do any implications for you, even if it seems obvious I don't want to intervene

ill assume arguments which are "won" have a high but not 100% probability, so don't just read new impact defense as probability "weighing", HOWEVER, I think comparing links and warrants in the backhalf means your arguments can still be more probable then theirs

theory

i mean theory is fine i guess but i can't say im jumping for joy when i hear "interpretation debaters must disclose on the NDCA wiki 30minutes..."

i default to reasonability but no rvis, i will not hack for either of these norms but please read an underview as to why CIs are better (most ppl alr do this so u should fine)

please do not read IVIs unless something v problematic has happened

T > K (and ROTB) > substance (you can definitely change my mind this is just what i default to)

ik the basics of how Ks work but I don't have a lot of experience so a little extra time on warranting will go a long way

try not to spam 50 buzzwords every speech and not explain what it means

differentiate on what is prefiat and what is postfiat and what my ballot means in the context of solving for your theory of power

i'd prefer judging a K at least somewhat tied to the topic but i am willing to evaluate anything

speaks

try not to say any slurs and your speaks will be fine (mostly)

Shashidhar Srinivasa The Golden State Academy

Srinidhi Srinivasan Power Speakers Unlimited

Eesha Suri CMS Southlake Junior Debate

Last changed on Sat December 2, 2023 at 1:46 PM CDT

-debated on the national circuit for 4 years for Southlake Carroll, graduated in 2023

-I'm a year or two older than yall-- call me eesha not judge pls :)

-go as fast as you want, send a doc if it's over 250 wpm

-yes, add me to the email chain eeshasuri@utexas.edu

-can evaluate tech, flay, or lay debate, do whatever you're most comfortable with

i presume neg 1st LMFAO

My judging philosophy: make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible. I will vote on the path of least resistance.

Quick notes:

I'm not flowing or listening to cross most of the time
Keep your own time for prep, I'll time speeches. If someone goes over on prep, it's up to you to call them out
Tech>truth
I'm not intervening 99% of the time. If evidence is sent in the email chain, I'll only look at it if the evidence is the deciding factor.

Things I like and will result in higher speaker points:

-weighing. please link weigh if you guys have the same impact, or do weighing in general. weighing condenses the round and makes it so much easier to judge

-send docs and case before your speeches. Docs should include cut cards for every response you read, as well as the paraphrased response if you are paraphrasing. If you're paraphrasing, don't have cut cards ready, and someone says that you're misconstruing evidence, I'm going to tank your speaks.

Not only does this prevent an unecessary waste of time by calling and waiting for evidence, but it also helps for accessibility purposes if a team is going fast.

Speaks start at 27.0.

--> sending case before + cut cards= +0.5 speaks

--> sending case with cut cards and also rebuttal doc with cut cards= +1.0 speaks

-disclose on the wiki! I believe that disclosure is a good norm. Let me know if you disclosed before round and I'll bump your speaks up by +0.5

-please give warrants for things and try to break the clash between competing pieces of evidence. I don't want to intervene as a judge at all, so you have to give me reasons why your evidence is better so that I don't have to do it. In general, going slower and giving quality responses is better than being fast and blippy and it'll be reflected in your speaks.

Carded responses with a warrant= Good Analytics> Carded Responses without a warrant

-go for less in the backhalf. please don't frontline every single argument-- just collapse on one or two and do a lot of quality weighing.

-Good extensions. An extension is uniqueness + warrant + link + impact. I am not voting on an argument that isn't extended or properly explained.

-be creative :)

Things I don't like and will result in lower speaker points:

-being rude or condescending in cross

-being racist, sexist, homophobic, any of the -ists, and I will drop you immediately and report you to tab

-misconstruing evidence. PF has gotten to a place where a ton of debaters go fast, be blippy, and paraphrase/misconstrue evidence. I understand because debate is a game, but if someone calls you out on it you're recieving a severe penalty in speaks. If that evidence is key to you winning the round, I reserve the right to drop you.

-blippy debate lol. I can evaluate fast debate and I had a ton of blippy debates in high school, so I understand the strategic advantage of going fast and being blippy. However, debates where there are more clash are just so much better to evaluate and listen to.

Progressive

Theory

I ran theory a lot my senior year. Run theory to check back against abuse.

Default to:

DTD

Competing Interpretations

No RVI's

I will evaluate frivolous theory, but my threshold for responses is going to be super low.

K's

I ran Fem IR a lot throughout high school. Most familiar with Cap, Fem IR, and Security. I honestly don't know how to evaluate K's that well though so err on the side of overexplanation and run at your own risk.

I'm a first year out so I don't remember a lot abt progressive args. Run at your own risk

Charlie Synn Del Mar Montessori School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:26 PM PDT

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Isabella Tang SpeechCraft

Last changed on Mon July 22, 2024 at 7:45 PM EDT

Experience: I have been an active member of the debate community for the past 5+ years. I spent the first 3 of those years as a Public Forum Debater and the rest 2+ as a judge and a coach. On top of that, I have had some experience in other public speaking events including but not limited to Original Oratory and Model United Nations.

Judging Philosophy: 1) The most important one is that I firmly believe that the debaters should be 100% responsible in helping me understand the content of their case and blocks. It is NOT my responsibility to have any prior understanding of any resolution and debaters should not expect me to, either. This means, in order for you to win a voting issue, you have to explicitly tell me why and cite any relevant information that was discussed in a round. 2) Pay very close attention to the arguments mentioned in a round. You are responsible for reminding me what is the most important information in the round. If your opponents have dropped an argument, I expect you to take full advantage of it. 3) So long as an argument can be explained with logic and backed up with credible information, I will buy it. 4) K/Ts are permissible, but please bear in mind that the public forum debate was supposed to be a kind of debate that the general public can understand. Your K/T should also follow that philosophy. 5) Be careful with the language you use. Do not use any degrading or offensive language when describing an argument from your opponents. 6) I will not tolerate any abusive behavior. Debate should be an inclusive environment and participants should at all times hold themselves accountable to that standard.

Flowing: I prefer to flow in writing and I take flowing very seriously. My decision will be made based on flowing so the debater should be very clear with their speech delivery and structuring.

Speed: I am generally ok with speed but I prefer a paced delivery.

Roadmaps: General roadmaps are permissible. I expect it to be done within one or two sentences. Anything longer than that will be crossed off on my flow. No specific argument should be mentioned in roadmap and will thus be crossed off on my flow.

Frameworks: If you are going to introduce a framework, you should be prepared to explain it, extend it and debate it. More often than not I find debaters introducing one but not being able to extend it consistently.

Observations and Definitions: They go along the lines of frameworks. But for these two, debaters should also help me understand why they are essential for your case.

Evidence Check: I will allow it in moderation, but I expect all checked evidence to be addressed in speeches. If a piece of evidence was checked but not addressed, I will deduct your speaker points.

Crossfires: I listen to crossfires though I will not always flow it. I will sometimes highlight arguments or evidence that catch my attention on my flow. However, you should still highlight any information you want to me to put on my flow. I expect any crossfire to be a civilized discussion in which both sides take turns asking and answering question, which means absolutely no yelling or delivering a monologue of speech.

Summary: I expect summary speeches to focus primarily on addressing voting issues. This means your main focus should be put on giving me an overview of the previous speeches and crossfires, identifying your winning arguments and explaining them to me. Conduct weighing when necessary. If there was any confusion you need to address, summary is the time to do it. Only when you have explained all aforementioned information should you proceed with further rebuttal.

Final Focus: I do appreciate some pathos in Final Focus, though you should not rely on it to win a Final Focus. You should approach this with a similar strategy as you would Summary: identify the most important winning arguments and go over each of them; you need to present your terminal impact in this round during Final Focus and conduct any weighing when necessary.

Speaker Points: My average speaker points is 26, but it might vary from tournament to tournament. When allocating points I tend to follow the six general ideas (analysis, reasoning, rebuttal, crossfire, evidence and delivery). Any misconduct in a round will result in deducting points (i.e. not addressing a piece of checked evidence, rude behavior, offensive language, etc).

Ethan Tauro Power Speakers Unlimited

Last changed on Mon July 22, 2024 at 12:29 PM EDT

Here is my no joke paradigm for Princeton Scrimmage:

I'm tech>truth. Don't run k's, theory, tricks, phil, or anything but the resolution in the Princeton Scrimmage. Don't be sexist or racist. That's a nono.

If you replicate the debate style of Ishaan Banerjee, Alex Margulis, Ryan Chen, Veer Prakash, Josh Cohen, Paul Wang, or Nick Budny --I'm auto picking you up.

When I'm judging, I see the round in three main categories: your case, weighing, opps case.

To win my ballot you either need to win:

Your case and the weighing

Your case and their case

When evaluating the round, I look to weighing first when I feel like it. Make me do as little work as possible. If there are two pieces of weighing, tell me which to prefer and why. Whichever team is winning the weighing, I look to their case next. But if they lose their case, and the other team wins their case -- the other team wins the round.

Some rules for the back-half

everything must be in both summary and final for it to be on my ballot.
extend the warrant, not the tagline (like don't say that aff relieves the wealth gap, say that because student debt disproportionately hurts colored borrowers, so relieving it would tenfold black wealth -- and thus close the wealth gap)
A good extension includes the uniqueness (what's happening right now), the link (how affirming changes what's happening), the internal link (how your link leads to your impact), and your impact THE MOST IMPORTANT (why your argument matters)
preferably weighed everything (this includes turns if you want offense)

Case:

Speed is fine, if it is too fast or I can't understand you, I'll ask for your case for both my flow and to run at P-Classic.

Rebuttal:

Cover everything, don't be dropping stuff. Everything on your opponent's case in the back-half should start in rebuttal. Make sure you spread out your time efficiently.

Summary:

Your case (Extend, Frontline, Weigh), Weighing (Extend, Frontline, Weigh), and Defense (Extend, Frontline, Weigh).

FF:

Condense summary into 2 minutes.

Speaks:

31: I recommend this website for you want to be the best debater ever. You truly deserve to win this tournament. https://tinyurl.com/4mzh2t9u

30: You completely blew my mind. You completely controlled cross and gave outstanding speeches. I expect you to be in at least semi's.

29.5: Excellent debater. I expend to see you in the elimination rounds.

29: Solid debater. Solid round.

28.5: You're a good debater. Right amount of everything, just wish you were a little more aggressive.

28: Everyone starts with a 28. This is the average speaker points. Try to aim higher.

27.5: Hey nice try, but not your best round...

27: You got steamrolled... I know how it feels...

26: You lied in you speech or brought something new up in FF.

George Tiesi Poly Prep Middle School

Halimat Usman Debate Go

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:44 PM WAT

Hello there!

My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/her). I was a regular debater and public speaker until I graduated. Now, I employ my vast speaking and judging experience to judge and coach speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, Radio Broadcast, Ethics Olympiad among others.

Email address: ojonehalimat@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Iappreciate debaters who c heck out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations.

It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree with the contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary. Following the ethical rules of the game would be great.

To restate (because it is important), please be sure to follow all equity rules and guidelines when engaging other debaters and judges.

Finally, I employ all debaters to keep time as I do so too to ensure that you’re keeping track of time spent on different aspects of your speech. It would be nice to hear you wrap up your speech, just in time and not in a rush.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please keep your cameras on at all times. Be sure to communicate valid reasons if at any time, you can’t have your video cam on and we’ll be sure to pardon and make an exception in this case.

Other Remarks:

I prefer medium paced speeches. Do note that I listen very attentively and will very much note down everything you have said. Also, I am very aware of human diversity and I am well equipped to understand everyone and be equitable to everyone at all times.

Sumit Verma Ivy Bridge Academy

Kush Vijapure The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Wed March 13, 2024 at 9:27 AM CDT

Hi! I'm Kush, I'm an LD/Policy debater. None of this is steadfast, if both teams agree, I can judge in whatever way you want. kushvijapure13@gmail.com

Be funny, the activity is supposed to be fun, making me laugh = higher speaks

Debate:

Pref shortcut

1- LARP/Generic Ks (Academy, Baudrillard, Cap, Setcol, Security, Pess)
2- K-affs/Complex Ks
3- Phil (Kant,Hobbes, Butler) + Viable Shells (ie: OS, Contact Info, Disclo, Paraphrasing if its PF, etc..)
4- Friv Theory/ Trix
5/Strike- Dense Phil

General

I strongly believe debate is for the debaters, the shortcut above is how much I understand each argument, not my willingness to vote on it. I will try to evaluate anything put in front of me and will do my best to ensure a fair and equal round, that being said I do like certain things more than others so here are a couple of things that you might want to be wary of (X lies where I fall between the two).

Expressive (your face not mine) -X--------------------------------------- Stoic (your face not mine)

Policy--------------------X-------------------------Kritik

Trix------------------------------------------------X-Args with warrants

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

Read no cards------------X-----------------------Reads every card

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

States CP good------------X-----------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing---X---------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always util----------------------------------X-----Sometimes not util

UQ matters most---------------------------X-----Link matters most

Fairness is an impact------------X-------------------Fairness is not an impact

Presumption votes aff-----------------------X------- Presumption clearly neg

Try or die--------------X---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard---------------------------X----- Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity---X------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-------X-------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face----------------------X-------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev----------------------------X-------------More ev

"Insert this re highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

expressive [my face not yours]-X------------------------stoic (my face not yours)

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

New affs bad------------------X------------------------Old affs bad

Aff on process competition-------X--------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X---Real arguments

Line by line--X-----------------------------------implied warrants/answer

Speaker Points:

I try to give good points. My general scale is as follows:

For LD:

30 --- Top speaker

29.6-29.9 --- Late elims

29.3-29.5--- Mid elims

29-29.3 --- Debating to clear

28.5-28.9--- Even

28.0-28.5 --- Below even

Below 28 --- Other

Below 27 --- Disrespectful/Horrible evidence ethics

For CX:

29.5+ — Top Speaker

29.3-29.4 — Top 5-10

29.1-29.2 — Top 20

28.9-29 — Top 25% maybe clearing on speaks

28.7-28.8 — Top 50% wouldn't clear on speaks

28.3-28.6 — Top 75%

28-28.2 — Top 90%

Corin Wallace ModernBrain

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 6:18 AM CDT

My background:

I have a background in speech and forensics, having done policy debate (CX), oratory, congress, etc. and other speech and debate activities throughout high school and college. I'm a KUDI alumna and my graduate work is in policy analysis and rhetorical discussion of same by young people. I love debate and I want you to learn something and yes, have fun. This should be enjoyable, and you are learning critical thinking skills by doing this.

My public speaking approach:

I do not expect public speaking perfection. If you are working on your public speaking skills, you can absolutely tip the scales with your argumentation and intellect. This is a technique that you should be practicing more than a spread/speed flow. I don't mind a spread - and practiced spread debate myself - but remember -- if you can't back up that approach with a lot of intellectual discipline, it will fail. I will see right through it.

I don't care what you wear, how you sit, if you stand. I want to see "a mind at work."

You can send me your case. My email is coringilbert@gmail.com Why would you do this? Because you just want to save time. Because you've crafted a case that will dominate the discussion and you are focused on stock issues and wish to empower me to dig in to prep.

General Paradigm

Anything is valid if you signpost, signal and stick to your framework. Don't try to do too much. I appreciate attention to the stock issues, but I appreciate the evolving nature of this activity and if you choose to adjust to T/R, gaming model, or offer a kritik -- do so with confidence and walk the judge(s) fully through the model you are using. Strive to make sense. Work to be crystal clear, as the round moves on, what elements are being dropped by the other side.

Theory: I'm open to them, but you had better bring the thunder in terms of providing clear rationales for each element of the theory. DO NOT ASSUME that your theory will be acceptable. Theoretical debate frames have to float and if you present one, it's got to be focused on a traditional debate outcome. Your judges (myself included) expect to be able to explain clearly a rationale for a decision on the ballot. Read the room. If your theory is ineffective -- don't be afraid to punt.

If I hear an argument that is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic or Anti-Semetic -- you will lose. Similarly, I have no issue with passion, healthy intellectual aggression, and even a little passive-aggressive gamesmanship. But candor should never be confused with condescension.

I love a clean flow at the end of the day. Give me a reason to cross out arguments that have been covered, circle things left untouched and structure a ballot with insight on how you might improve.

Alex Wan Youth Voices None

Apollo Wang Potomac Debate Academy

Karen Wang HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 9:00 AM CDT

TL;DR: Your best bet is to read stock cases at a reasonable speed. I did PF for a while a decade ago, so take that as you will.

If I don't catch your argument/don't understand it, I won't vote on it. The more tech you want to be, the more likely I am to not understand, the more likely I am to not be able to evaluate your arguments, the more likely I am to vote you down. Phil + Ks + T/theory + tricks I'll probably not understand period, so if you want to make the round a coin flip, go ahead! Otherwise, it'd be smart to not read them. Spreading is also not a good idea. Perhaps my typing can keep up with your speech doc, but in rebuttal speeches without a doc, it's good to slow down. I will likely not vote on things that seem blatantly illogical to me. I WILL tank your speaks/vote you down if you say anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

long(er) version:

- make things clear for me please: I'm not going to catch all the drops/extensions, so make that clear (here's the extension of the aff! they didn't extend contention 2, so don't evaluate it!)

- warranting is necessary. if you don't warrant an argument and just read a bunch of blips, i'm probably not going to understand what you're talking about and not vote on it.

- weigh! make weighing clear too, and really contextualize weighing so that I have a ballot written out for me by the end of your speech (minimize my confusion and you're likely to win). you may think that requirements for weighing are lower when the judge isn't as tech, but it's actually the opposite. also likely good to condense all weighing into a voters section.

- I will judge based off of the quality/logic of the written case but also your presentation and rebuttal of the arguments during the round. and again, I will drop anything I don't understand/didn't catch, so make sure you're being clear and enunciating. Looking forward to hearing you guys debate today!

Sophia Wang Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 10:42 AM CDT

Email chain: sophiaw1128@gmail.com

I did PF for four years, coached since graduating

flay --------> me ----------------------> ultra tech policy judge

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter

Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presume first

Strike Guide:

Link spamming (10> in a case) and dumping frivolous progressive args will only hurt you

Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = L20. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than a 25

Tech:

I judge substance better than I judge prog, keep that in mind, that being said -

Things that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Stock Ks, most frameworks ran in pf

Theory:

CI>R, DTA, no RVIs, text by default but up for debate

Should be read immediately after violation, depending on the situation (experience level, impromptu theory) I am OK with forgetting to extend interp or violation if there are no responses on it. Standards and voters need to be in every speech.

In messy theory debates with multiple shells involved. You must weigh in order to prevent me from intervening.

You can paraphrase or not disclose as long as you respond well to their respective shells. I don't mandate either nor am I biased towards those particular standards. I will also evaluate things like theory bad if you win it on the flow.

Important: I will judge Ks using the mechanisms that doing pf has given me. Do not expect me to understand policy jargon or know how to implicate your literature properly. You know your own K best, so if you're going to real Ks please spend enough time telling me exactly how you want me to evaluate it. Otherwise it'll just be an uninformed ballot.

I am most familiar with stock Ks: fem, cap/sec etc, so if you're reading more niche K make sure to be extra diligent about implicating it.

Shells almost always uplayers the K, so you need to read counterinterp of respond to shells read, just weighing may not be enough (again depends on the K)

Things that I am not familiar with:

T, Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy

pls no

Speed:

Send doc

Speaks:

Speaks are given based on strategy/content instead of rhetoric/fluency. I give 30s. My baseline is 28. I rarely go below that.

Speeches:

Constructive:

Just be clear, I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted

Rebuttals:

If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but fine), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns. Second rebuttal should frontline. if your opponents bring up weighing in first rebuttal it is okay to not address it until summary. I don't evaluate "no warrant" responses unless you give me counter-warranting, link weighing, or some degree of implication.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky and needs to be in every speech. That being said, the extent to which I'll tolerate blippy extensions is directly inverse to how much ink your opponent puts on said thing you're extending. At the minimum, I need link + Impact + implication.

Final Focus:

Be smart with ff strategy, easiest way to win me over as a judge.

Interact, weigh, go for the right things

Feel free to postround, it is good and educational. But please only do so if the round ends before 10pm, otherwise just email me

Usho Watanabe ADL

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:27 PM CST

Control C+V'd from Zayne El-Kaissi who influenced my style a lot.

I'm a rising junior, and competed as a part of Taipei American ChWa, here if it means anything to you

General:

For outreach: I'll evaluate Ks and Theory

Please call a TKO (Technical Knock Out) if your opponents have no routes to the ballot. If I agree that you are winning on everything, you get W30s, if you are wrong, you get L25s. Risk it for the biscuit?

warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded.the only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards. So make sure to implicate evidence well

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

I tend to like calmer debate styles, but debate however you feel comfortable

Case/Rebuttal:

slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument

Signposting rebuttal well is impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Sum/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it. So slow down for weirder arguments and be sure to explain things well.

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Pleeaaaaasssee weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round,if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details(ask before round if you have any specific questions):

I usually don't love examples (especially in case) unless they're used to break clash / prove a certain actor's incentive.

Theory is fine but not my favorite and I don't rly know how to evaluate it super well. Same with Ks. Progressive frameworks are fine though. Also framework should probably be in case, rebuttal is late for me to evaluate it.

If I need a speech doc, you're speaking too fast. Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

DAs are fine within reason

2nd rebuttal has to frontline, I'll only drop a team if called out though.

Misscut evidence will lower your speaker points, and if I think it's really bad I may drop you

Metaweighing can be good, just don't be too too silly. Also be creative with weighing and metaweighing in general

Second case never has to respond to first case. if you want to though, I guess go for it

Evida Wei Aurorae Young Academy

Chinnel Williams Riverdale Country School

Carol Wininger The Harker School

Owen Wu Ivy Bridge Academy Korea

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2023 at 2:54 AM EDT

FOR NOVICES:

hi everyone! to win my ballot, you need to do a few things:

be thorough with extensions. this means in summary and final focus, you should be reexplaining your own case and defending it, reexplaining key responses to your opponent's case, and weighing. explain all your reasoning.
implicate! explain why your points matter and why they are important. if you have an important response, tell me what impact it has on the round and why it is so detrimental to your opponent's case.
no new cases or responses in summary or final focus.
2nd rebuttal should frontline (defend against responses).
have good organization in your speeches and tell me what order you are going in and what you are about to do.
WEIGH!! in a scenario where both cases are true, why do your impacts matter more?

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

hi! i am a high school varsity debater with almost three years of experience in pf. overall: i consider myself somewhere between tech and flay in that i consider the flow but also don't evaluate tricks & have a low threshold for responses to weird arguments. but here are some more specifics:

general:

i prefer slower/clearer reading, but any speed is fine as long as you can send a doc
even though tech>truth overall, you still need to have good warranting in both case/response and extensions in the back half (i.e. making a one sentence response and extending it by saying "extend _ card" isn't a proper extension)
try to stay away from theory, k's, and other prog. because i won't be able to judge it well - especially tricks or frivolous theory because i have a bias against it
signpost and have clear organization of speeches or i will be super confused
keep your own time/prep time - i don't time your speeches but usually i time prep
i will call for any evidence i think is critical to the round
anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. loses you the round plus low speaks

front half:

frontline in 2nd response or it's dropped - even against weighing in 1st response
weigh your responses, especially turns & make them well warranted

back half:

extend everything you want me to consider in both summary and final focus (including case & impacts)
i love prereq, link-in, amplifier, & short circuit weighing but any is fine. if you're creative with your weighing i'm probably more likely to like it
no completely new arguments in summary or final focus or it won't be considered (besides frontlining in 1st summary & backlining)
metaweigh
make your weighing comparative - saying "we outweigh on magnitude because we save 100 million lives is not comparative
PLEASE collapse - it makes the round so much easier to judge

good luck y'all!

Jing Jing Xiao VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

YOUYAN XU Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Daniel Yan Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 2:55 PM EDT

Hello!

My name is Daniel, and I competed in PF for four years from 2017-2021 at University School in Ohio.

TL:DR

I will judge off of the flow. I apologize if I do not judge the round as technically as you hope for–I will do so to the best of my ability.

Ask me for any clarifications before the round starts.

Long

Here are some more in-depth explanations of my preferences regarding certain things:

** New Rule (because people have been taking way too long). If it takes you longer than a minute to send evidence (per card) then I'll take time out of your prep.

General:

1. Speed: Speed is fine unless you're unclear. Send a speech doc if you plan on going super fast. I won't flow based on the speech doc if I can't understand what you're saying at all.

2. Weighing: Please do comparative weighing and start it as early as possible! If you just say "we outweigh on scope" without explaining why I will be sad. If both teams do different types of weighing and do not meta-weigh then I will also be sad and have a headache. I will not default to prioritizing a certain weighing mechanism–I will simply tally up who has more (unless it's a pre-req).

3. Frontlining: You must frontline offensive arguments in second rebuttal including kicking out of turns. If you are conceding a delink to get out of a turn, please explain how it delinks it. If you choose to frontline defense in second rebuttal on a certain argument, you must frontline all of it or else it's conceded.

4. First summary: First summary only needs to extend defense if it is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

5. Final focuses: All offense in final should be in summary. If you want something to be on my RFD, it must be in final focus.

6. Implications: Please implicate everything clearly! This is especially true for (but not excluded to): Overviews, cross-applications, turns.

7. Turns: I like turns, especially if they are explained very well. I encourage you to go for them if it is strategic. Make sure they're extended are impacted out + weighed.

8. Collapse: Please collapse only if it is strategic (99% of the times it is). If there is no reason for there to be 8 pieces of offense at the end of the round I will be sad and speaks will be lower.

9. Extensions: I care about good extensions. I will not appreciate it if you simply say "extend our Smith '18 response." You need to fully extend the response and implication. Same thing goes for case arguments. I will not consider poorly extended arguments only if the other team points it out–otherwise, I will grant bad extensions (unless it's 2nd final).

10. Analytics vs Evidence: Good warrants are good warrants even without evidence. In fact, I'll probably be more impressed by you if you can give well warranted analytics.

11. Evidence: I will try my best to not call for evidence and only judge off of what was said in the round. I will only call for evidence if the round is unresolvable without it where one team says it's good and the other says the opposite and you ask me to call for it. I will not call for your evidence just because you claim it is good and want me to look at it. IF I do end up calling for evidence and it indicts itself later, it will not factor into my decision unless the other team points it out.

12. Presumption: If there is *no offense* in the round, I will flip a coin to decide the winner absent any presumption arguments made in the round (Aff is heads, Neg is tails). ie. default neg or default first. Note: only saying "default neg" is also not a complete presumption argument, there needs to be warrants. (update: I will presume your side if you are both first & neg, otherwise I'll coin flip).

13. Crossfire: Have fun & make me laugh. Use this time to ask clarifying questions and help yourselves– I'll only care if someone makes a critical concession and is brought up again in a later speech.

Progressive Arguments (I'll try my best)

**If you are clearly running progressive arguments against a team that cannot engage with them (i.e. novices) to win then I will be very sad, and you will too.

1. Theory: Most experienced with paraphrasing theory and disclosure theory. If you're running theory in front of me you should only be doing it if you really understand it. For example, unlike regular arguments, I will intervene against incomplete extensions (i.e. don't extend DTD).

**Personal bias: Paraphrasing is good, Disclosure is good, Being offensive is bad.

2. Tricks: I'm game. I have basic knowledge–low threshold for responses.

3.. K's: Least comfortable with Kritiks. I don't think I'll make a good decision. Some experience with general PF Ks (Imperialism & Security). Won't be able to judge others very well.

Speaks:

1. Bring me any fruity candy. ex. sour patch kids, skittles etc.

2. Be funny

3. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed + don't doc bot - I won't flow off a doc if you're unclear.

4. Off-time roadmaps: Just tell me where you're starting and signpost idc about every little thing you're doing. If you do an elaborate roadmap and then don't follow it I'll be sad :(.

5. come preflowed please

6. No speaks theory...earn them

7. good strategy

Ava Ye Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Maggie Yuan HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Paulina Zacharko ModernBrain

Hui Zhang Potomac Debate Academy

Ji Zhang Joaquin Miller Middle School

Stephanie Zhang Legacy Prep Junior

Last changed on Thu October 15, 2020 at 1:26 PM CDT

I competed all 4 years in PF and graduated from Plano West in 2018.

UPDATE: I am old and semi-rusty. I have not judged in forever because college...life...this pandemic...take your pick. Therefore, if I'm not up to speed on the new trend in debate, bear with me.

General:

Tech over truth, but please don't take this as an indication to card dump. Cards without warrants hold little weight in my mind. My favorite saying is quality over quantity. My second favorite saying is "be like a whale and not a bunny." Bunnies are fluffy. Whales weigh a ton. In short, please, PLEASE, PLEASE WEIGH. It makes my job as a judge soooooo much easier if you weigh your arguments, and then I won't have to intervene and make everyone unhappy.

Note: I probably won't have done extensive research on the topics on hand so make sure to explain your arguments clearly, especially if you're not running stock arguments.

Signposting

SIGNPOSTING IS CRUCIAL!!! I am sleep deprived from doing debate and college hasn't really helped with this situation. This doesn't mean that I'm going to fall asleep on you, but it's a warning that if you go too fast without signposting I will get lost on the flow especially if there's a lot on it. If you're not going the conventional top down approach signposting is even more crucial. You don't want me wasting time trying to find where you are on the flow and miss an argument that you place. That being said, if you're going the traditional top down line-by-line approach, please DO NOT give an off time road map. It's an unnecessary waste of time.

Framework

It would be nice if a framework appears and is warranted in constructive. It will help with the weighing later on in the round, granted if it get's extended in the latter half of the round. Simply stating that "our opponents didn't state a framework meaning that our's is the default" does not mean I buy it. Frameworks must also be WARRANTED, otherwise I default cost-benefit analysis and that might not be so great for you.

Rebuttals

Line-by-line is preferable. I don't require 2nd rebuttals to completely respond to 1st rebuttals. However, you might find that you have a much greater chance of winning if you respond to turns that your opponents place. I think it's pretty abusive if opposing turns are responded to in 2nd summary. 2nd rebuttals don't have to respond to defense but if you have the time then by all means please do. In general please don't card dump. If you can place multi-warranted arguments instead that would be great! If you manage to weigh at the end that's even better!!

Summary/FF

WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH! If different weighing mechanisms are given, then WEIGH the WEIGHING MECHANISMS. Defense sticks unless the opponents have already responded to it. Summary is where you collapse, COLLAPSE, COLLAPSE! Remember what my favorite saying is. Any arguments you want me to evaluate must be extended and appear in both speeches. And saying "extend contention one across the flow" is not extending. Some form of warrant and impact must be explained in order for arguments to be considered to be extended. Also don't extend through ink. If you try to, you just wasted part of your precious 2 minutes because I'm not going to consider it at the end of the round. Final focus should mainly be big picture voters. At the end of the day, why is your narrative ultimately the one I should vote for.

Evidence:

I'll call for evidence if it's contested in the round, the other team explicitly tells me to, or I think it's super sketchy. I HIGHLY prefer if the pdf of the evidence. Do not show me the paraphrased version of the evidence you read. If you can't produce the evidence or I think that you're blatantly misconstruing the evidence then I will drop it from the round. That means check your evidence before rounds start. It would suck if I had to drop you guys because of bad evidence.

Speaks:

My range is 28-30 unless you are straight up rude, racist, homophobic, etc. in round. Then I won't hesitate to tank your speaks. Otherwise, it's generally high speaks especially if you have a really good round narrative.

General Courtesies:

Don't be rude in crossfire, especially GCX. Don't scream at each other. Don't ramble during crossfire either. No one likes the person who decides that crossfire is just another 3 minute speech. If crossfire ends early then it ends early. There's no need to prolong it if no one has anymore questions. I expect you guys to hold each other accountable with prep time because I definitely won't be keeping track of it for you. If evidence is called for between teams, don't take forever to pull it up. Make sure to have it saved in some accessible way. LET'S TRY TO END ON TIME, OR EVEN BETTER YET EARLY because no one wants to be stuck here longer than necessary and no one will thank us for pushing back the tournament.

Progressive Debate

I'll evaluate these same as any other argument in the round, but if you get too technical then I will get considerably lost. This is PF, let's try to stick to what's generally considered PF.

Feel free to ask me any SPECIFIC questions before the round starts, and if you have questions about the rfd/ballot afterwards feel free to come find me! Otherwise, I look forward to the round!

Tony Zhang BC Academy

Jadon Zheng HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Sue Zhong Aurorae Young Academy

Login to Tabroom

Middle School TOC hosted by UK

2022 — NSDA Campus, KY/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges