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 Thu December 15, 2022 at 1:24 PM 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

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

Last changed on Wed May 10, 2023 at 10:15 AM PDT

About Me

i am the beach.

TL/DR:

i will not intervene if i can help it

every round is decided by determining what the highest layer of offense is -> who links into that best.

General Info

1. At times I’ve been called a weighing hack, and I guess I understand why. Above all else, I am going to vote for the biggest impact in the round if two teams go for different impacts. I find anything else is intervening, which I hate. I evaluate weighing as I would framing, in rounds where framing is not present. Thus, impact weighing is not a tiebreaker where I determine which arguments have access to the link then decide which argument has the biggest impact, but rather where I look at the resolved weighing debate, and ONLY evaluate the impact which wins said weighing debate. Resolve the weighing in the round early, and my ballot will be quite easy.

2. I believe that in order for defense to be terminal, it only has to be implicated as such and be resolved against frontlines. If these criteria are not met, I will assume there is a small but nonzero risk of a link story happening, which bears the risk of allowing your opponents the ability to win the round off of the framing debate and a risk of a link. I also believe defense is not sticky, it doesn't make sense for an argument to be extended from first rebuttal to first summary. I think this norm made sense when summary was only two minutes, but it should have died when the NSDA changed this speech to three minutes.

3. I am fine with speed, but depending on the time of day my ability to keep up varies. SLOW DOWN WHEN SWITCHING BETWEEN PAGES/SPOTS ON THE FLOW. Please give me speech docs and slow down a bit in the back half. Add me to the email chain: dylan.beach01@gmail.com. I also hate teams who read 40 paraphrased responses in rebuttal with no warrants and don’t at least slow down when they’re switching between arguments.

4. I hate intervening. I was not an ethical debater, and as a result, I don't really care much about things like evidence ethics or academic integrity. You can lie, you can read false evidence, etc. If it is not called out, I will not do anything. In my view, my role as a judge is not to be an educator or anything, but rather to be a blank slate in the back of the room. All the "educating" can wait for after the round, I see no need and have no desire to meddle with the content of the round.

5. I like warrants, but I dislike intervening more. That means if you extend a contention with no warrant, I will unfortunately vote off it if your opponent drops it/doesn't point it out. But, if they do point out it's no warrant I'll treat the "no warrant" response as terminal defense and won't vote off the contention. Just have warrants please, I'll tank your speaks if you don't.

6. Tag Team CX is allowed, I think it's a good thing. I largely do not care about cross, I am probably not paying attention anyways.

7.You have to frontline everything in second rebuttal. If you get a bunch of arguments dumped on you, then you should be collapsing (this should happen in every second rebuttal imo). I will consider anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal conceded.

8. I am surprised that I have to say this, but ANY ARGUMENT has to be responded to by the speech immediately following it (obvious exception for constructive case level arguments, not gonna make you diverge from the norm in PF.) However, there is one exception. If the first constructive reads framing or theory, the second constructive MUST RESPOND. If first constructive theory or framing is not responded to in the second constructive, it's conceded, unless you make arguments (in the second constructive) as to why you do not have to respond in this speech.

9. Asking questions after the round is fine. Light post rounding is fine. Be aggressive/disrespectful at your own risk, I will probably match your energy as well as dock speaks.

Theory

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory/theory 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 read anything from this article as a reason why theory is bad, I'm probably just going to intervene. 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 activity propagate. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening.

I believe that I am the correct judge to read theory in front of, often I find a well-executed theory debate both more interesting and easier to evaluate than a substance debate of the same caliber. I do not care if you're reading friv shells, it's probably funny.

Istrongly dislike paragraph theory, and strongly prefer shell format. I will still vote for paragraph shells (again, not going to intervene,) but I would probably have a low threshold to pull the trigger on "theory must be in shell format" interps. This is definitely the only area in which I am strongly biased, to be honest, so read para theory at your own risk.

An interpretation can only be read immediately after the violation occurs. Conversely, a counterinterp can only be read immediately after the initial interpretation is read. The latest I will evaluate an interp is the FIRST summary speech (large, immediately hostile violations are an obvious exception.)

Misdisclosure automatically disqualifies you from accessing any disclosure based interp/counter-interp. Really bad practice.

some defaults people have informed me are helpful:

text over spirit of interp

Yes RVI's

Competing Interps (legit have no clue how to resolve rounds under reasonability pls don't make me do it)

Fairness O/W Education

voter metatheory 1st

K's

I think I'm competent enough compared to the average Public Forum judge to evaluate any K that gets read in Public Forum (performance args, cap, sec, setcol, neolib, etc.) However, I am not one of the judges who are increasingly abundant in Public Forum, that will just hack for any perf args.

I think K debate can be important, so it's disappointing when it's done poorly, and equally disappointing when judges hack for a poor execution of the K so as to avoid being viewed as problematic. If you are going to swing wildly outside of the PF meta, and read phil-rooted args, I am going to be confused and will require a lot of slow explanation. Make sure you're extending the ROTB, alt, link-- every part of the K, in order to garner offense.

I also by default believe that the theory page comes before the K page, as theory exists to determine what parameters the K can be evaluated under, but I could definitely be convinced otherwise.

Weighing

I've gone back and forth with this for a while, but I think probability is just a function of the strength of an argument's link. That's the only objective way for me to evaluate arguments, and as a result I think that your mitigatory defense should just be leveraged into warrants for why you comparatively outweigh. I also consider arguments like evidence indicts as things that merely diminish an argument's strength of link, instead of entirely defeating the argument. Just keep that in mind.

Refer to the "General Info" section part 1 for everything else.

Evidence

I'll never call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and nobody called it out. I will also not do anything with evidence that I see after the round, unless there is an implication made IN THE ROUND to the indict being true.

Final Thoughts

If there's anything you felt weighed in on my decision that wasn't something you could collect from reading this paradigm, let me know. I tried to make my paradigm fairly extensive so you could get a good feel for how I view the activity.

I have become hardened towards debate in recent years, but I still think that the activity can be very transformative for students. The activity was instrumental in making me a more accepting/inclusive person and preventing me from adopting hateful ideas that were prominent in the environment I was raised in (literally a trailer park.) I hope that you come out of this activity a better person, and proud of the things you achieved in it.

Bryan Benitez Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Last changed on Fri December 2, 2022 at 9:07 AM PDT

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

***Update for Zoom Tournaments: Slow down on authors and tags in all speeches. If you are worried about speed, I'll take speech docs and follow along. Clarity>>>

dec '22 update:

Send case cards on the email chain so we don't have to wait a bunch for cards

Updates as of Jan '22 topic

Argumentation

- FOR STRAKE RR OR ANY RR: I WILL NOT EVALUATE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION UNLESS IT IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE TOPIC, i.e don't read disclosure or paraphrase bc you didnt do any prep (normal tournaments, do whatever, keep my progressive section in mind)

- Far too many teams are sacrificing warrants in exchange for technical victories. To win you must fully extend your argument, i.e the uniqueness, link and impact, with the warrants on each of those levels.

Logistics

-send me your case docs and set up an email chain with your opponents(lets save time)

- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)

- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here

- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.

General

Debate is a game so tech>truth
Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

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

I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
if i look confused, i probably am
give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
defense isnt sticky
Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

Offense overviews in second rebuttal are annoying, but you do you
I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,

Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me

do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
Dont do "extend our link"

for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary

this also goes for arguments that are conceded

First summary

Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact

Second summary

This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
Defense must also be extended

Final focus

Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me

Evidence

I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it

If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument

I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked

Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

Progressive stuff

there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate

Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
I will vote for one team and one team only

I will evaluate theory

Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.

i will not evaluate K's with no link to the topic and tricks. I don't know how to evaluate this stuff and I also think these arguments are insanely exclusionary.
K's with links to the topic are your best bet with me if you're gonna read these kinds of arguments
at the end of the day, it's substance or you're scared. I think topical progressive arguments make a lot of sense and are good for the activity, reading stuff like the Good Samaritan paradox ain't it.
Sam's Thoughts on progressive debate align really closely to mine, It's a long read but I think it definitely goes into a lot more detail than what I have here.

Donts

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

This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices

Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

Extras

From cara’s paradigm ““If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.”
if you call "harv*rd" Stanford of the East, you get +0.5 speaker points (this has to be if you had evidence from that organization, it cant just be random)
I agree generally with Nibhan, Nilay, Raj and Abhi when it comes to general views on debate (tech specifics are on my paradigm)

other events

im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important

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 Sat April 15, 2023 at 6:07 AM CDT

TOC Update: Must send speech docs and cards before every carded speech --> cases and rebuttal especially. This means your case (paraphrased is fine) WITH cards. If you don't, you get capped at a 27.5. If you do, you start at a 28.5.

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

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 HS, Quarry Lane, Brookfield East (2021-), Ransom RT (2021-)

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.

-----

I will never forget the day Shabbir saved me from the slums of India. I had grown up in a small village where opportunities were scarce and I was struggling to make ends meet. I was living in a tiny, cramped shack in the slums and barely able to afford the basic necessities for myself and my family.

One day, while I was scavenging for scraps to sell, I came across a flyer for a free workshop on entrepreneurship. I had always dreamed of starting my own business, but I didn't have the resources or the know-how to make it happen. So, I decided to attend the workshop and see what I could learn.

That's where I met Shabbir. He was the leader of the workshop and he had a wealth of knowledge and experience when it came to starting and running a business. He was kind, compassionate, and he truly cared about helping others succeed. He saw potential in me and he took me under his wing, teaching me everything he knew and providing me with the support and guidance I needed to get my business off the ground.

But Shabbir didn't stop there. He recognized that I had the potential to achieve even more and he encouraged me to apply to Hustlers University, a prestigious business school that could provide me with the education and opportunities I needed to succeed. I was hesitant at first, not sure if I was good enough or deserving enough. But with Shabbir's encouragement and support, I mustered up the courage to apply and, to my surprise, I was accepted.

Thanks to Shabbir's help, I was able to escape the slums and attend Hustlers University, where I received a top-notch education and gained the skills and knowledge I needed to succeed in the business world. And with Shabbir's guidance and support, I was able to turn my dream into a reality, starting my own successful business and leaving poverty behind for good.

I will forever be grateful to Shabbir for his kindness and his willingness to help me succeed. Without him, I don't know where I would be today. He truly saved me from the slums and gave me the chance to live a better life.

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 April 17, 2023 at 7:30 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

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 Sat November 13, 2021 at 2:48 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 February 28, 2023 at 8:04 PM EDT

Experience:

Sophomore at Dougherty Valley High School. I have experience in PF, LD, and Impromptu, PF being my main event.

PF:

General:

Email: desai.arianna@gmail.com

For Wildcat Classic, No need to send me speech docs or cases.

Speech docs for rebuttal probably should be sent to avoid time delays. I'll let everyone know in 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:

I am a firm believer in the 15 second grace period, please use it if you need, I will flow up to 15 secs over.

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

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

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

Speed

I'm good with speed. If you're gonna spread, 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. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, and some defense.

Summary/Focus

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

- Please 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)

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. I still encourage being aggressive though and love to see it.

- 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. 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. 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 struck 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 almost equally to a normal round. If you are running a theory, email me before the round so that 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 automatically vote for the opposite side.

Speaking:

Slow is better than fast, its better if the arguments you make are actually comprehensible, don't try to spread if you know you cant.

Other Things I Like:

Comparative weighing.
SIGNPOSTING in speech.
Brief Roadmaps.
Weighing as soon as possible.
Summary/ff parallelism (which basically means mirror your summary and final focus so that both have the same narrative).
AGGRESSION (: I love seeing debaters being assertive, don't be very rude though.
Fun cross, cross is generally my favorite part of a debate, don't be boring, ask good questions, try to steer clear of clarifications unless necessary.
GOOD LUCK!!!
Include a Simpsons ref in your speech and I will give you a point back, if you are already a perfect 30 go you!

Lars Deutz Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Wed November 23, 2022 at 10:07 AM CDT

I competed for A&M Consolidated for 4 years in PF, extemp, and policy. 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
The time it usually takes for evidence exchange to happen in PF is a major problem; however, having quality evidence is also paramount to education in the activity. As a result, if you are debating in Varsity PF at a TOC-bid tournament, please send speech docs before constructive with cut cards (as attached .docx to the email chain) or your speaks will be capped at a 28
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 its 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
Post-round. Although I will never change my decision, you should use this opportunity to learn what you could've improved on

Credit to my friend Shabbir Bohri for letting me use his formatting & some text

Nethra Dhamodaran Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Mon January 16, 2023 at 10:56 AM PDT

About Me:

- Junior and a competitor for Dougherty Valley High School

- Varsity PF (and a bit of LD in middle school)

- Double Qualed to GTOC with 4 golds so far this year. Championed La Costa, Quarters at Jack Howe, Nano Nagle, and Berkeley, Octos at UNLV and ASU, etc.

Pronouns: she/her

General:

- Email: nethra.dhamodaran@gmail.com.

- Grace period of 15 seconds

- Please pre-flow before round for purposes of saving time.

- Wear whatever you want, read any argument you want (be creative), but for speed, I'll just say ahead of time that I'm able to understand arguments a LOT better when they are not spread cause my on-the-spot processing power isn't great

- Always extend, frontline, signpost, collapse and WEIGH. And clash is fun- please don't just repeat the same sentences and arguments throughout the round.

Evidence:

- please don't misconstrue ev

- Evidence exchange is perfectly fine but if too much time is taken for finding the cards called for, I may have to start taking time off of prep.

Arguments:

Rebuttal

- Frontline in second rebuttal. Even if you aren't going for the contention, if there are turns and/or DA's, respond to those and then move on. Just extending case is not frontlining.

Summary

- I prefer collapsing. If you know you are losing on one of your arguments, save time and don't go for it-- quality>quantity :)

- The first speaking team doesn't need to extend defense that the second speaking team drops in rebuttal (don't waste time with that!)

- Link extensions in summary and ff; I'll have to drop your contention, key cards, and/or impacts if you don't properly extend

- Please please weigh or do some type of impact calc

Final Focus

- No new arguments in final focus (includes weighing and implications). Don't try to sneak any in.

- Final focus should be a parallel or at least similar to summary.

And most importantly, once an argument is dropped, it's dropped.

Progressive Arguments:

I know the basics of arguments like theory and k's, but I'm not well versed and I have very minimal experience. However, I am ready to listen and evaluate it, so if you want to run it, go for it-- I'm all ears.

Cross:

I don't evaluate it and I won't include what is said in cross for my decision, but I enjoy it, especially when it becomes an in-depth discussion and strategic questions are asked.

Speaks:

Drop speaks if you:

- Can't find ev quickly enough

- Are mean in cross-- I know debate gets highly competitive, but staying calm helps more than you'd think.

- Going 15+ seconds over time

- Read a theory that you violate

And as usual, don't be mean. I'll dock points if you are rude or passive aggressive and exhibiting behavior that is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. It'll result most likely a loss.

Finally, enjoy your round!

Nina Dolden VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Terrance Dsilva Ivy Bridge Academy

Daphne Du Dougherty Valley Bridge

Laurice Duan HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

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

Last changed on Mon May 8, 2023 at 11:56 AM EDT

Blue Valley Southwest: 2015-2018

Liberty University: 2018-2020

Email for the chain: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

Top Level:

1. Ignore my facial expressions.

2. Much better for policy than the K.

3. This paradigm reflects my random thoughts about debate. Generally, you should keep the debate simple. Complex strategies, big words, and flexing your topic knowledge will probably hurt you because, chances are, I am not well researched on the topic or your advocacy.

4. Tech > Truth, but I do not have the sharpest flow. Do not blaze through concessions/arguments that you think are game-winning. Do frame the debate at the beginning of the 2NR/2AR: writing my ballot early will help me flow the important stuff.

K on the Neg

1. The AFF gets to weigh the 1AC.

2. I do not understand high theory.

3. Links should be to the plan.

4. I often find myself voting NEG because AFF teams are bad at answering the K.

5. The perm double-bind is 100% true for structural Ks (e.g., capitalism with a movements alternative). I have heard no convincing argument otherwise.

K on the AFF

1. Defend a material change from the status quo.

2. 'Debates about debate' probably lack ballot solvency when the forum is two teams (one of which has to negate) and one judge. Outrounds may be different because there are observers; however, I tend to think most observers watch to improve their flowing, scout for their school, or support their friends. My overwhelming bias is that AFFs must 'solve' their impacts. Rejecting fiat does not free you from solvency. I am sympathetic to the uniqueness argument that debate is deeply flawed and unfair in a structural-sense; making that observation alone is not enough to win the round. I am also not convinced that debate rounds are an effective forum for creating genuine change.

3. Counter-interps are your friend. You are in a great spot if I believe your interpretation is predictable and good for clash.

4. Impact turns to procedural fairness, predictability, and clash are not persuasive.

K v K

1. Nope.

2. Empirical examples are good. I will place a lot of weight on evidence that compares your theory of power/explanation of the world with the opponents' theory of power/explanation of the world.

Framework

1. Procedural fairness is my favorite impact.

2. TVAs do not have to solve the whole AFF, but TVAs that solve none or few of the AFF's impacts are unpersuasive.

1. Many AFF teams are bad at defending untopical plans.

2. Reasonability should frame the AFF's interp. Something like "Even if the NEG's topic is better, ours is [predictable, sufficiently limited, debatable etc.]. Voting NEG [justifies a race-to-the-bottom for bad interps, discourages topic research, etc.]."

3. Limits and contextual ground standards are great .

4. TVAs are underutilized.

5. Slow down on caselists. Assume I do not know what AFFs look like on the topic.

1. CPs should be textually and functionally competitive. I lean AFF on Perm do the CP.

2. CP amendments are okay against new AFFs and add-ons. Not a big fan otherwise.

3. 'Perm do both' can be explained in the 1AR, but not the 2AR. NEG teams should ask how the perm functions in 2AC cross-ex.

1. A++.

2. Turns-case args should be couched in the internal links and links of the DA when possible.

3. Good 1NRs line up their speech with the 2AC (impact o/v is the exception).

4. 1NR should card dump if you have the goods.

Theory

1. Go a bit slower.

2. Conditionality is good, but strong impact comparison + technical proficiency can prove otherwise. Condo bad has become relatively popular; I do not love this trend. 2AR on substance > 2AR on theory. This should not deter you from going for Condo if that's the best 2AR or the NEG has really messed up.

3. Perf-Con theory < conceding assumptions made by one contradictory position to take out the other.

4. Everything should be a reason to reject the team. Why artificially limit the impact of your argument?

Things I've noticed about myself as a judge

1. I highly value scenario/impact explanation. This is especially true for rebuttals.

2. Reading is difficult. If you think the debate should be won/lost on card quality or a key piece of evidence, make that known.

3. Impact turn debates are my favorite rounds to judge.

4. I am prone to confusion.

5. Long deliberation, quick rfd kinda judge.

Hot Takes

1. Good for spark/dedev/co2 good.

2. I will flow/evaluate both policy and critical arguments. "Policy debate bad" or "The K does not belong in debate" are unpersuasive arguments.

3. I will evaluate arguments about an individual's or team's bad acts outside of the debate as a reason that individual or team should lose. However, I have a high threshold for two issues. First, the "link" evidence should leave no doubt that the act(s) happened. Assertion alone will not establish a "link." Evidence beyond 95% certainty will establish a "link." Second, there must be a reason to reject the team. Why should I punish a team for an act or acts happening outside of the round? Safety, detoxifying the activity, and deterrence are possible, but not exclusive, avenues.

Public Forum

TOC UPDATE:

1. I took a step back from judging PF this year but continued to judge policy. I do not foresee any issues with keeping up; however, clarity and signposting > mumbled garbage.

2. My knowledge of PF norms is limited. I do not know how 'acceptable' or common theory and critical arguments are in this activity. Thus, I will default to my policy biases. In short: I will evaluate both, but I lean towards substantive debate, policymaking, and consequentialism.

General Thoughts:

1. Arguments in the final focus must exist in the summary.

2. I care about line-by-line. Meta framing is not a substitute for clash.

3. Signposting will get you very far very quickly.

4. Some teams do not read evidence in rebuttal - that seems bad, but nobody tells me why.

5. One team has expressed that FF and Summary speeches do not need to extend arguments or do line-by-line. I vehemently disagree.

6. Teams that email evidence/speech docs get a .5 speaker point boost. Set up the email chain before the debate.

7. PF evidence is usually awful. Use that to your advantage.

8. Only read paraphrasing theory if your opponent has misrepresented or overstated the author's claims. If you provide that evidence, I will stop the round and treat the situation as an ethics violation. The opposing party will be allowed to respond one time and the moving party will not be allowed a rebuttal (i.e., give me all of your evidence upfront). It does not matter who paraphrased and cut the evidence (you are responsible for what you choose to read).

9. Trigger warning theory is important, but overly used in PF. I once judged a debate in which Team A gave a trigger warning 5 minutes before the debate and asked if anyone would like Team A to change the contention. After no reply, the debate began. Team B gets up and reads the following interpretation: Teams must give a trigger warning and provide an anonymous means to communicate concerns related to the case. Pushing the goal post by such a small margin was unpersuasive because Team A had already given a warning (which may be enough in light of the important topics the case might cover) and was willing to change the entire strategy to make the space safer for folks with past trauma.

House Keeping

1. Be polite and don't be offensive. You will lose for discriminatory language or policy.

2. I think death/suffering good arguments are unpersuasive. Arguments about inevitable death/suffering are unimportant.

3. Mark cards during the speech.

Ezekiel Ehrenberg Hire

Maya ElHawary VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Hema Erva The Golden State Academy None

Gabriel Esquivel Yglesias ADL

Last changed on Fri October 21, 2022 at 8:00 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

I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.

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.

I didn't go for K's much but I really like debating them vs my policy aff. More than policy v policy debates. Links are the most important thing for me. Impacts are a close second. 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 work hard to listen and read your evidence. I am honest about what I don't understand. I am patient with novices.

Be clear or go slower (7 or 8/10) for online debate otherwise I'll miss the nuance in your arguments. I clear twice before I stop flowing.

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 Wed March 8, 2023 at 5:56 AM CDT

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator

Former Coach Hubbard High School

Former Coach Harker Middle School

Debating experience

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

If you debated what speech did you do most often?

Double Member

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? (Possible answers may include: referee, policymaker, tabula rasa, stock issues, capable of effectuating change or educator).

Tabula Rasa

In what ways do you intend this judge philosophy to be helpful to debaters? In other words, what would you hope debaters would do with this philosophy?

I hope they use this judge philosophy to better understand the sorts of debates that I judge, and to get a better understanding for how I receive arguements

Do you take flash time as prep time? In other words, when does prep begin and end with you? Do you expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time?

I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time, and the end of prep time is determined by the tournament.

Do you have teams provide you speech documents throughout the debate by flashing or emailing them to you? Do you have teams provide speech documents throughout the debate by emailing them to you?

Whatever the team prefers

If you do, why have you adopted this practice? If you do not, have you made a conscious decision not to and if so why?

I think that decision should be made to the debater

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 25-30 points, 25 being for poor speech, less than 25 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?

Yes

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. I will also vote on topicality for nontopical Aff . 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 be not very persuasive unless they are topically specific. I find the nature of debate to be too constricting for performance solvency and I feel like they can be non-uniqued easily.

I don’t buy arguments that your in-round "performance" solved for more than what it might have in the immediate context (if you advocate for suspending the illusion of the debate world). I also hold that the act of debating, criticizing, and advocating itself is a performance, and so you will need to do extra work to justify how and why yours is extra unique. 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 and love a good old fashion 2 on v 2 off and a cp

Thomas Gill Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Wed May 11, 2022 at 3:14 PM CDT

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

For MS TOC:

-I know more and more teams are running more progressive arguments. Couple of thoughts on that:

-I never ran theory in HS, nor am I well-versed in kritikal literature. But it is my job to evaluate what you are reading, so I will do my absolute best to keep up.

-On theory: I am biased towards saying disclosure is good (but minute differences, like first 3 last 3 vs open source vs full text, are not important), and paraphrasing is bad. However, I will evaluate the round as it happens. Just letting y'all know how I feel

-On Ks: if you are running a K please have a clear alt. I need a way to determine how/why you are generating offense off of the K

Other quick notes

-I'm probably what you'd call a "flow judge", but I won't just vote on anything. As a general rule, if I can't explain an argument myself that I hear in round, I won't vote on it

-Debate like you normally do. Pretty much any PF debating style in front of me can win my ballot if done well (I can handle what PFers call "speed" but probably not spreading)

Things I Like

-Trigger warnings for anything graphic or violent. Please. When in doubt, read them. And allow everyone in the room to anonymously opt-out if they feel uncomfortable

-Actual cards. Evidence ethics in PF have gotten kind of ridiculous. Summarizing a long pdf isn't ethical and it leaves too much room for misconstruing evidence

-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 South China Sea has huge levels of tension, and another that says that the SCS 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 just meh

-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. You have that extra minute, and 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

-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. I've heard people weigh on "clarity of impact" "uniqueness" "cyclicality" and "concreteness". Please don't. 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 I didn't explicitly say anything, default to Christian Vasquez's paradigm

If anything is unclear/you have additional questions, feel free to email me at tmg7@rice.edu

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 Tue July 26, 2022 at 10:53 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 February 26, 2021 at 4:28 AM PDT

Benjamin Hagwood, Head Coach at BL Debate Academy/Executive Director of NSDA Vancouver

About me:

I debated for five years at Liberty University. This will be my third year judging. Since trading places (debater to judge) my view of debate has matured and my perspective has become more open to views that I currently did not have. To begin I will say that I understand that debate is a game, with that being said I realize that some people use it as a place to protest, advocate and discuss their political, social, religious and individual ideas. I used my time as a debater to stretch the rules and practices of an activity that I viewed as net –beneficial to the growth of academics and potentially policy-makers. As a critic I enter a round with my predispositions just like everyone else but I don’t want to limit the discussion that can take place in any round.

Public Forum:

1. You have a limited amount of time use it wisely. Collapse the debate down to the voting issues you believe you are winning.

2. Offense is more important than defense.

3. Weigh the debate accordingly.

4. I don't flow cross fire but I do pay attention and if you say it then I count it towards how I will interpret your argument.

5. If no framework is mentioned I will default to Util.

6. I will base my decision based on sound logic and drops on the flow.

7. Don't steal prep time.

8. Don't be rude.

9. Speaker Points: (ways to gain and lose them janks)

a. A tasteful bowtie will definitely increase your overall speaker points. (Max .5 increase)

b. A joke that is actually funny will also increase your speaker points. (Max .5 increase)

c. Bad jokes (Max 1.0 decrease)

d. Offensive language or actions (Max 30.0 decrease)

I am rather easy to talk to if you have any questions. Have fun and be smart when you think of your strategy. Do what you do and I shall tell you if I love it or not.

Policy

The stuff you need to read: (do you pref me or not)

1. I think everything in debate is debate-able. I tend to enter the debate believing that I will vote for the team that persuades me that their argument is the superior to their opponents. I will say that I am not amused by offensive language or jokes (you should call people out on what they do though). So if someone does something that I think is offensive and you don’t call them out on it they could potentially still win the round if you don’t say something they will just also have a 0.

2. Not reading a plan text doesn’t necessarily equal a loss in my book. I think great discussions can emerge from different ideas or strategies. This however does not mean that there is no way I would vote against you. If you are reading an argument that magically seems to shift out of every link in the debate that’s probably bad (again that is up for debate, also I think there is a large difference between not having a link and only having bad links).

3. I absolutely love DA and case debates. I tend to believe that people don’t have good defenses of their case anymore because they just believe that no one argues inherency or solvency anymore, just CP’s and K’s. I think a formidable strategy is to completely deconstruct a case and go with a simple DA.

4. I think critical theory is interesting. I have to admit graduate school stretched the theory that I would generally read but it has introduced me to new arguments and helped me grow. But my base knowledge is still critical race theory. This is generally my area of interest but I am definitely interested and reading other forms of critical theory. I will admit Baudrillard is still collecting dust on my “electronic” bookshelf. I intend to start reading more of if soon but so far I have only dabbled in his theories.

5. I think that a well-placed theory violation can change the entire direction of a debate. I think that you can do whatever you want but you probably should be able to justify doing it. Being negative is not enough to be able to run four conditional positions that contradict each other. Those worlds are not hermeneutically sealed…sorry. Actually I am not sorry just don’t run bad strategies.

6. Performance debate is growing and here to stay. That is not to say that you are not making important points, it’s just that generally (and most people won’t admit this) judging a team that executes a good performance is tough because you generally want to watch and enjoy and then remember that you also have to evaluate. Needless to say I am a fan of performance, but only if you do it well. Bad performances…please don’t do it in front of me.

7. Clash of civilization – I haven’t actually judged many of these. I don’t know if I will or not in the future. I will say that if done well I think that framework can be a great strategy against a lot of teams. My particular opinion is that there is probably a better option to run against most teams (that don’t defend tradition notions of debate) but if that’s what you want to roll with then that’s what you should roll with.

8. CP’s do it.

9. Speaker Points: (ways to gain and lose them janks)

a. A tasteful bowtie will definitely increase your overall speaker points. (Max .5 increase)

b. A joke that is actually funny will also increase your speaker points. (Max .5 increase)

c. Bad jokes (Max 1.0 decrease)

d. Offensive language or actions (Max 30.0 decrease)

I am rather easy to talk to if you have any questions. Have fun and be smart when you think of your strategy. Do what you do and I shall tell you if I love it or not.

Franz Hill Bob Lanier Middle School

Lisa Howard ModernBrain

Erik Hsu ADL

Amy Hu Potomac Debate Academy

Xinchuan Huang The Quarry Lane School

Liangston Jamesou Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Benjamin Jensen The Harker School

Last changed on Mon February 7, 2022 at 4:51 AM 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 Fri November 4, 2022 at 7:42 AM EDT

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.

Manikandan Kanagarajan Ivy Bridge Academy

Muzzi Khan The Harker School

Last changed on Tue May 30, 2023 at 1:54 PM PDT

Background -

Harker ’23, did LD for 3 years

Pronounced - “Moo-zee”

Email - 23muzzik@students.harker.org

General -

Technical debating first, but arguments must be complete. I have a mostly policy background, which inevitably shapes how I understand arguments, but I’d like to stick as close as possible to my flow.

Exceptions: Arguments about events outside of the round, “Reverse voting issues,” and anything that makes debate inaccessible (being unkind to some clearly less experienced, or making arguments that deny the badness of racism/sexism etc.)

Make a good faith effort to contact the other team before making an ethics challenge.

DA/Case - Good for anything.

CP - I will judge kick if instructed. I’m not great for theory. Function alone makes the most sense to me. Not a fan of certainty/immediacy.

K - Probably best for a middle ground framework. Not incredibly well read, but that just means I won’t insert explanation for you - go for what you can execute well.

T - I generally think predictability matters more than limits, but also care much more about internal links.

Framework - Both sides often assume their conclusions true without sufficient explanation, whether it be asserting clash/fairness are intrinsic goods to explaining their exclusion DA. I'm fine for whatever standard on framework and either counter-interp or impact turn-centric strategies for the Aff, just go for what is most likely to win.

K v K - I have little experience or background knowledge in these deabtes (Read: near-zero, excluding two Cap K debates which probably don’t count), but am not against judging them. With extra judge instruction/hand-holding I should be OK.

Phil- If it's not tricks, carded, and explained well then I might be alright for it. Admittedly, many of the arguments in favor of consequentialism seem intuitive to me, but I think there are many holes with some of ways it is commonly justified (e.g. a lack of a substantive framework in favor of many random reasons to prefer)

Tricks - Read a DA plz.

Misc -

You can insert rehighlightings if from the same text the other team has read.

Answer arguments in the order presented, ideally with numbers.

Minimize dead time. You probably don’t need the marked doc unless an unnecessary number of cards were cut early.

If someone asks you for a doc without cards you didn’t read or if you read an entire position or not, answering “flow,” is sufficient.

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

Syon Mansur Potomac Debate Academy

Chad Meadows Ascent Academy None

Priti Mehta Bob Lanier Middle School

parth misra Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 6:58 AM CDT

Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )

Memorial '19

SMU '23

Yeah, I want the docs -- pmisra@smu.edu ,

Speaks:

stealing a version of this from @sebastian cho

since debate is a game lets play the speaks game

Say you want to play the speaks games

- I will put it into a random number generator

- 3/4 chance of 30 speaks 1/4 chance of 28.5 speaks

Good luck!

2023 note! only reason im not judging every weekend on the circuit like '22 is bc stuff isn't online like it used to be, don't let that shy u away from preffing me, I'm judging one way or another and am up to date w the topic.

Pref Cheat sheet

LARP -> 1-2

K / Theory -> 1-2

Trix -> 1-2

Phil -> 3 *

*(not saying I'm inept to these debates, rather just don't normally judge them, never read them when i debated but am fine w them)

I tend to prefer LARP debates over traditional debates. I never liked traditional LD (however not opposed) and was never the best with PHIL, these debates can be confusing for me, in all honesty. I was never a theory debater but if the theory flow is very cleanly explained, ill vote on it. No I'm not opposed to trix, or permissibility debates. Yes, ill vote on disclosure. I'm very reluctant now to vote on condo, but.. that can change 100%. I default to competing interps, no rvi's, and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. Please Extend the aff in the 2ar even if the 2ar is theory. You can go for the k I don't have any issues and enjoy a good K debate, don't expect me to know your high theory (Batille, Pyshco, Baudy) beforehand though, I will listen and evaluate, but will require a higher threshold of proof and explanation.

I will not vote on arguments I don't understand. if you think it's sus, imagine how I feel.

Policy

I did policy for 3 years and had some success

Policy Affs > K affs

Soft left policy affs> Big stick generic Affs

While I have these notions, I will listen to a K aff etc and not be biased against it.

Speed is fine but will say clear once before stopping flowing.

Disad/Cp debate is the key to my heart

I think a solid case page debate is the most underutilized tool in debate

you can go for the k I don't have any issues and enjoy a good K debate, don't expect me to know your high theory beforehand though, I will listen, but will require a higher threshold of proof and explanation.

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

Donny Peters Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Fri July 15, 2022 at 8:07 AM 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 Tue February 28, 2023 at 8:32 AM PDT

*Speaks Sometimes, ya’ll are too serious. Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :)

*In person but why are we preparing email chains and then proceeding to walk over with our laptops to exchange evidence? Did pandemic debate teach us nothing? Unbelievable. It’s funny but also I am begging for better standards.

*Online: I am almost always 5-10 minutes early, unless I'm judging flights, in which case I'll do my best.

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 yrs of college super trad policy (stock issues/basic T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and 1-2 varsity teams the last couple years. She/her.

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 still making my mind up on how much I'm willing to penalize a team for paraphrasing, and you're welcome to make in-round arguments about it.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are ):, 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.

As a result, frontline whatever you want to go for in summary in second rebuttal - first summaries, call it out if not. It is conceded in my eyes and my thoughts and prayers go to your opponent who doesn't frontline anything in second rebuttal because they didn't read this.

However you decide to share evidence, make it fast. If your opponents are taking too long (1 minute+), you're welcome to make an argument about how it should be dropped from the round at that point.

If it's in final focus, it better be in summary.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Dumping as many blippy, unwarranted responses as you can = overrated, not fun, will probably annoy me.

Messy debates make me sad. I think 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 mitigating structural violence," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

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.

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

Varsity will start at 28 speaks unless you're mean or bad with evidence ethics.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF just fine, but if it's anything that resembles spreading in another event, I'm not your best bet.

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

Pallob Poddar ModernBrain

NP Polanco Hire

Shriya Punreddy CMS Southlake Junior Debate

Dharma Rajesh Power Speakers Unlimited

Vivek Rao Charlotte Latin School

Aleisha Readye Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Tue January 26, 2021 at 2:28 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 Sun May 15, 2022 at 11:32 AM EDT

Hi :)

I'm Wajiha. (she/her) I'm a junior in high school. You can call me by my name, however, during speeches I expect to be addressed as the judge. I have around 4 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

Important note for TOC - - 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.

· I'm a flay judge.

Actually, I'm a flow/tech judge that takes lay stuff like presentation into my decision. Just pretend I'm flow k love

· 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.

· Link/impact turns need the full argument extended if your opponent goes for another

· 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. once again, I'm unforgiving and petty.

~ 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. love ask anything before doing this.

~ How to GAIN speaks ~

- physically turn while turning an argument = +.5

- reference taylor swift or rihanna subtly but just enough to make me notice = +.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; @wajihaarizvi :))

Have funnnn

Mai Rubin Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat April 29, 2023 at 5:59 AM 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 second 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 Wed January 11, 2023 at 8:30 AM EDT

sahj23@polyprep.org for the chain

Hi! I'm a Senior at Poly Prep in my 8th year of PF debate. I have been debating the national circuit since freshman year.

Some of this paradigm might be about things you haven't heard of, so feel free to ignore stuff. There are some technical details that are probably not relevant in middle school or novice debate so you don't have to worry about them. You can also ask me about anything you don't get before the round.

In fact, please ask any questions before or after the round about my paradigm, the round, or whatever else. My name is Jonah Saah on Facebook if you want to reach out outside of round (as long as you are allowed to by coach/parents).

I flow and vote off of the flow, presentation does not factor into my decision. However, I still do need to understand what you're saying, so be as clear as possible. In that vein, I can handle any speed short of full-on spreading (think high school national circuit policy debate) but that does not mean I will understand you if you aren't clear.

If at any point during the round you feel unsafe, say something or message me on Facebook and I will do whatever is necessary to fix that, including stopping the round.

It's middle school/novice debate, so I'll be pretty skeptical about progressive arguments. That said, I'm comfortable with theory and K's.

I think speaks are silly; if you are generally pleasant in round you will get at least solid speaks.

Speech by speech:

Cross

- I don't flow cross, but I will pay attention. If the other team makes a concession, bring it up in a speech.

Case

- You're probably not going to change your case just for one round I'm judging you, but for what it's worth I don't really need any definitions or framework unless you are reading a unique argument. That means you don't need to say "our framework is lives" or "West Asia is defined as x"; these are things I assume no matter what.

- Your arguments should have clearly defined, terminalized impacts, not nebulous talking points. You don't need to put a number on it, but it should be something you theoretically could quantify: an increase in poverty, deaths, etc. "Increased legitimacy" or "$X billion" are weak impacts: tell me why these things matter.

Rebuttal

- I'm of the opinion that you should frontline all responses to your case (or at least the contention you are going for) in second rebuttal, but I understand that is probably not the norm in middle school or novice, so you you don't have to. If you know how to and want to though, please do. That being said, if a team drops defense in second rebuttal, you should extend it into 1st summary (and final) if you want me to vote on it.

Summary/Final Focus

- Extend every argument you want me to consider in both summary in final focus. This means you should restate an argument you read in your case, restate responses to the other team's case, and defend responses to your case in both speeches. I'll be somewhat flexible with this if neither side does so, but generally, if one side extends reasons for me to vote for them and the other team doesn't, I will pick up the former.

- You should drop arguments. The first speech is 4 minutes and the last speech is two minutes -- you won't have time for both unless you reduce the number of arguments you make throughout the round. This usually should look like going for only one contention from your case.

- Not sure why this is a thing but please please please do not spend the first half of our final focus making generic claims like "we refuted our opponents arguments and defended ours." That doesn't influence my decision at all.

https://youtu.be/s_87e9RZE2o ????????????

Subrata Saharoy Joaquin Miller Middle School None

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 Sun April 16, 2023 at 6:54 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 and potomacdocs@gmail.com . Add both to the chain!

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.)不(Do not do these)

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.

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 (i probably will unless if it's super bad) 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. 1 I like. 5 I hate

LARP: 1

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 1

- 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: 2

- 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 : 1.5

- 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 : 1

- 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: 1

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 4

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: IIIIII

Speed: 2

- 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 : 2

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: 4

- 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 Smith Aurorae Young Academy

Last changed on Sat March 18, 2023 at 7:28 PM BST

I DO NOT WANT OR NEED AN OFF-TIME ROADMAP

TL;DR

Be kind in all that you do.
Add me to the email chain: thadhsmith13@gmail.com
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. You can probably consider me flay.
I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.
I have a slight preference for truth over tech.
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. I will be a very hard sell for something like "tall people theory" or "formal clothes theory."

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 currently coach for BC Academy, Aurorae Young Learning, and whoever else is willing to pay me.

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. You cannot take evidence out of context (like presenting a straw argument as though it's the actual conclusion of the author), distort evidence (add or delete words to alter the conclusion), or use non-existent evidence. If you do these things, you will lose the round. Also, I prefer it if you don't paraphrase.

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." That said, politics arguments can work provided they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and they don't say that a policy won't happen because of politics.

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.

"Prep stealing" is not a thing - If you're waiting on your opponents to send evidence I don't care what you do. 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 explain how you want me to interpret the round 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.

I probably won't vote on "debate bad" arguments but, hey, it doesn't hurt to try!

Congress

Congress (much like the real thing) is fundamentally an acting event. I view Congress as being very much in the same vein as DUO, HI, and DI - I want you to tell me a story. The most compelling performance and the most engaging character is who I'll rank highest. Try to avoid contradicting yourself when the bill changes - You should be the same "character" throughout the round. Something I really love to see is references to other bills and speeches - Call out your opponent's hypocrisy in supporting a bill when earlier in the round they said or supported something else!

Worlds

More than any debate event, Worlds Schools is judged holistically. The flow matters, but not at the expense of having a clear narrative, mechanisms, and link chain. Speaking style is also important - Just reading your case or speed-talking isn't going to fly. Something I look for specifically is worlds comparison - What do the opposing worlds, with/without the resolution, look like? Why is one better than the other?

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

I will not vote on death good arguments. I get it, sort of - 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 these arguments in front of me unless you want a loss, 20 speaks each, and the round to end early. They're not good education, they actively create an unsafe space, and they're often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

Backup of this paradigm

Farhan Sodiq Debate Go

Derek Song Del Mar Montessori School

Shashidhar Srinivasa The Golden State Academy

Srinidhi Srinivasan Power Speakers Unlimited

Eesha Suri CMS Southlake Junior Debate

Charlie Synn Del Mar Montessori School

Last changed on Sat January 14, 2023 at 6:53 AM PDT

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

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 Fri October 21, 2022 at 2:13 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 has 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/T 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 Thu April 28, 2022 at 5:10 PM EDT

General:

Hi everyone! I'm a flow judge. As for my experience, I started competing like 2 months ago in Novice, and I had scattered debate experience before then. Debate is a hobby for me now.

As for my judging, I am going to try and be the judge that I would have wanted in my rounds. I will always disclose and give a full RFD unless all speakers from both teams don't want it.

Rules:

So, my main rules are:

1. No screaming during cross. It's okay to be aggressive, but you can't be too aggressive or start yelling at your opponent.

2. No pulling out new arguments or impacts in FF, especially if your second. That is just bad debate etiquette.

3. No lying. This is straightforward rule. I have had teams that I have lost in elims to because a parent believed their lies in FF. I understand if it's a mistake and if you didn't hear a response, but if I catch you intentionally lying, I am 1. Dropping your speaker points significantly and 2. You're going to lose the round even if I saw you winning. I don't want to be debating in a world where people are lying. This is my number one rule.

Speaker Points:

As far as speaker points go here is my range. I want the debaters I'm judging to get at least 29's. Speaker scores don't differ if you won or if you lost.

31: I recommend this website for you to continue to master debate. 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.

Case:

Speed is fine, if it is too fast or I can't understand you, I'll ask for your case for my flow.

Rebuttal:

Make sure it's organized and hits all of your opponents points. Never drop anything.

Summary:

Analysis, Rebut your opponents main arguments, and MAKE SURE YOU WEIGH

FF:

Analysis, Rebut arguments, WEIGH

To wrap up:

Follow the rules of debate, be a good person, follow these tips and you will be fine.

Good luck in round!

George Tiesi Poly Prep Middle School

Halimat Usman Debate Go

Last changed on Sun April 10, 2022 at 11:55 AM WAT

Hello there!

My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/they). I am a student at the University of Ilorin. I am a regular debater with vast speaking and judging experience. I have gathered ample experience judging different debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), and Ethics Olympiad.

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.

I appreciate debaters that check 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 to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.

Your summary speeches should focus on highlighting the points, warrants and logical impacts that wins you the debate.

Your final focus should only encompass arguments that have been mentioned previously in the debate.

To restate, 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 Tue February 21, 2023 at 7:35 AM CDT

It's currently 2023. I'm an LD/Policy debater. None of this is steadfast, if both teams agree, I can judge in whatever way you want.

In general:

- Tech>everything. Truth isn't real in debate

- Clarity>speed; going fast is fine

- In debate I prefer the "author + claim + warrant + data+impact" model.

- Make sure to signpost if I don't know where I am on the flow it'll tank your speaks.

- Pls pls pls collapse as my coach always says "It's better to hit a home run than to hit two singles".

- It's really hard to win a debate purely off of defense (hard is not impossible), some offense helps most of the time.

- Humor will get you better speaks, and I rarely get offended by much.

- I probably won't read any evidence you send in rounds unless it's under dispute, or there's actual evidence of abuse.

- I believe in open source, in an ideal scenario. Everyone would have everything they read in rounds openly sourced. I mandate speech docs.

- just to get an idea of where to pref me here's my ideal panel: Ani Prabhu, Vinay Ayyappan, Rafael Pierry, Debnil Sur, Tyler Thur

Speaker Points:

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

29.4+ --- Top speaker

29.1-29.3 --- Late elims

28.9-29.1 --- Mid elims

28.7-28.9 --- Debating to clear

28.5-28.7 --- Even

28.0-28.5 --- Below even

Below 28 --- Other

Below 27 --- Disrespectful, I didn't like you, (reminded me too much of myself /j)

DAs:

- I'm a massive DA case debater

- Intrinsic perm is dumb. I firmly believe that the plan should stay the same no matter what. Adding things that are not intrinsic to the plan text is a way to get judges to vote for multiple advocacies and a way to skew the neg. It is stupid.

- normal means makes a lot of sense, make sure you make the arg if your DA relies on normal means. ex: "plan at the bottom of the docket"

Framework:

- Framework should not be arbitrary. An arbitrary FW is "they're not policy debate" I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

- Framework debate is kinda hard these days. It's lowkey an uphill battle, for debaters that show promise, I'll reward their speaks.

- Counter-Interps shouldn't be stupid. For example "we're in the direction of the aff" -> wack CI

Substance/Case debate:

- Depth in warranting>breadth in coverage. One good warrant in rebuttal is better than 5 cards that do the same thing.

- IMPACT CALC WILL NOT BEGIN LATER THAN 1ST REBUTTAL OR 1AR.

- I like clash in rounds, in-depth debates are good.

- Case debate is my favorite form of debate. I enjoy in-depth case vs DA rounds.

Theory:

- I tend to debate theory a lot.

- I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I won't vote against a team who paraphrases UNLESS someone runs theory.

- Evidence abuse/bad ethics makes this debate a lot better

- I'll be happy to vote off of paraphrasing theory, or disclosure theory.

- Ran condo a lot; CONDO begins no later than the 2NR

- Performative contractions are fine too, abuse makes it better

- I hate stupid RVI's with a burning passion, only excusable if someone does something like 7-8 off. If you run them and it's left unanswered, I'll consider voting off it.

- I'll evaluate any theoretical argument, even if some might call it "frivolous".

- OVERALL: I think theory is good, and that every debater should learn how to cut cards.

Topicality:

- Theory = Topicality, unless someone makes an arg placing one before the other

- I'll vote off of a stupid T shell

- If you're winning T go for it

- Abuse makes the shell better

- T is dying, not many people are good at it, if you are an exception I'll give good speaks

Critiques:

- k = da; alt = cp If you lose the cp it does not mean that you lose the da. the links are still das to the aff

- Impact your K in the context of the aff (does the aff solve, k turn the aff, k = no solvency for the aff), add an external impact (kinda like a DA), and then weigh.

- take care of the uniqueness debate, either the alt solves uniqueness or the uniqueness debate doesn't matter

- ROLE OF THE BALLOT do not use rotb to skip weighing, just because you win rotb doesn't mean you can stop weighing

Performance:

- I don't particularly appreciate watching debates that boil down to who's the most disadvantaged, or whose identity matters more it's really stupid

- The ballot goes to the team that attempted to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. Performance is just debate.

- I find it upsetting that most of these debates tend to be a little too personal for comfort, and tend to end with a chest-beating plan-plan action

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counter-interp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks (unless you have violated any previous clauses related to speaker points), if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.

EVENT SPECIFIC

PF:

-Stop stealing prep. Seriously. Stop. It is not cute. Asking to see a source is not an opportunity for your partners to keep prepping. If a speech or prep timer isn't going, you should not write on your flows or do anything that looks like prepping. I see this in a disturbing number of PF rounds. Stop

Evidence ethics are terrible in PF, I'm more inclined to vote for teams who have better evidence.

-Give a useful road map or none at all. Do not add a bunch of commentaries. A road map should tell a judge what order to put pieces of flow paper into and nothing more. Save your arguments for your speech time.

-Paraphrasing is terrible. Read quotations. Send out ev in carded form ahead of time. If you are a varsity, national circuit-level competitor, you should have figured out efficient ways to manage to allow the other team to review your evidence.

Policy:

In policy, I was a policy debater, I ran politics all the time, and sometimes I'd run security. That being said, that shouldn't discourage you to read whatever you want to.

LD:

Whatever goes. In LD, I ran the ESL K, Dice Roll (Nietzche), and the Data K.

As always be respectful in rounds, and have fun. Debate is meant for you to gain life skills and have fun with people. Enjoy!

Corin Wallace ModernBrain

Last changed on Thu November 12, 2020 at 8:35 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 Thu September 10, 2020 at 6:09 PM CDT

tldr: I'm a traditional judge- your best bet is to read stock cases at a reasonable speed. I did PF for a while like four years ago, so don't count on me being super tech. If I don't catch your argument/don't understand it, I won't vote on it. There's nothing that I'll straight-up not evaluate, but just know that 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. I can understand the concept of things like CPs and DAs, but definitely won't understand techy line by line stuff, so I would be wary of reading those. 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 super 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'll try to be as tab as possible, but can't guarantee I'll 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. (just don't be bad person please ?)

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 so 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.

- as mentioned above, any progressive argument is probably not the best choice to read in front of me. phil also is not the best because I won't be able to evaluate techy framework debates.

- 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 Sat May 20, 2023 at 6:33 AM CDT

Email chain: sophiaw1128@gmail.com please disclose case and rebuttal doc

I did PF for four years at Westwood

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

Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presumption flows neg on action topics and first speaking on benefits/harms topics

Strike Guide:

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

Evidence ethics - You must have a cut card for each piece of paraphrase ev

Accessibility - 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 25 speaks.

Tech:

Things that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Disads, meta-weighing, common Ks (cap, race), most framework args ran in pf

Things that I am less familiar with:

Tricks, weird Ks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs

This doesn't means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well

Speed:

Speak fast if you want (mostly-- but if you're over 350 words per minute, we'll have trouble), as long as you’re clear, and your opponents don’t get spread out of the round (hint: if this is a potential issue, ask if they would like to establish a speed threshold). I try to intervene as little as possible and that extends to your speaking. If I cannot understand you I will not work to understand you

Speaks:

Speaks are given based on strategy. I give 30s. My baseline is 27. I rarely go below that, and when I do, it's only to 26. If you get less than that, you probably pissed me off

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

Summary:

Defense is not sticky and needs to be in every speech. Generally speaking, no new evidence in second summary onward

Final Focus:

Everything in FF has to be in summary.

Interact, be smart on the weighing debate, go for the right things

Feel free to ask questions about my decision. But please only do so if the round ends before 11pm, otherwise just email me

Usho Watanabe ADL None

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 Wed July 6, 2022 at 2:59 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

Yong Jong Shawn Yen Ivy Bridge Academy

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