Tabroom.com

Inaugural Joseph F Uhler Memorial Intrasquad Classic

2022 — Austin, TX/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jawad Bataineh Westlake None

Morgan Burkhardt Westlake

Haley Clawsie Westlake

Nathan Laude Hire

Last changed on Thu July 21, 2022 at 4:28 PM EDT

Add me to the email chain/doc natelaude915@gmail.com

Theory = 30's

Non T K = 30's

T K's = 29's

Tricks = 30's

Substance = probably like 27, don't read substance pls, #uneducational #unbased

Hi, I debated at Westlake for 4 years in PF. I was a pretty mid debater and my first speaker carried me (@AlexRodgers) so don't expect god tier decision!

If I'm judging on a panel with 2 other lay judges, I will legit judge like a lay judge and vote for who was more persuasive/lay because I think thats the most fair (cough cough haha funny TOC 2022 octos cool moment), I can tell who's the better lay debater dw

Westlake '22 | UT Austin '26

Important stuff

For speaks I'll usually give around 27 or 28's. If you're funny or run cool (and stupid) arguments I'll go up from there.

If you spam a bunch of cards in rebuttal, good luck winning the ballot. Strike me if you debate like that pls (or don't so I can down you :) )

Poking fun at your opponents during speeches can be very funny and persuasive (don't be legitimately mean though, you know what I'm taking about)

Trigger warnings AND opt outs are MANDATORY, if you read a potentially triggering subject and don't read an opt out you're getting L25's regardless of if they read theory or not

TLDR- I'll vote on literally anything. Don't spread, don't card dump, frontline in 2nd rebuttal, fun/cool weighing is prioritized, I LOVE fun arguments (economic growth bad, escape to mars, some random link chain into extinction that doesn't make a lot of sense, you get the point), make the round enjoyable and you'll get 30's and a higher chance of winning. Don't be afraid to go for turns (IF THEY'RE IMPLICATED AND EXPLAINED).

Tech > Truth 100% of the time. If the round has like 0 offense in the round and no side tells me why I should default neg/aff, I'll vote for whoever was funnier in crossfire.

For Theory:

Disclosure is good (open source only)
Paraphrasing is bad
Card clipping is bad
Trigger warnings are good
Anonymous opt outs are good
Dates theory based
T is very based
Friv theory funny (and ill evaluate it fairly)

CI > Reasonability EVERY TIME- if you don't read a CI I'm downing you

RVI's good is probably true but I'll evaluate both sides fairly

Those are my personal opinions so if I'm 50/50 on a theory round, I'll vote for my believes

Otherwise, I'll just the round fairly. If you win that para is good or that disclosure is bad, I'll begrudgingly vote for you.

For K's

Disruption > discourse x400000
Word PIC's (pf versions of them) are good
Good chances that I'll hack for a Set Col K (any type of K's are fine tho)
If you're good at reading a K, I'll give you a 30, but if you read a K poorly I'm gonna yeet ur speaks

Constructive: DO NOT GO FAST. I will tank your speaks if your case is over 800 words. (im not kidding I will give you 25's and I won't feel bad about it, this includes shells and topical K's). Going slow will make the round more bearable for everyone. If you run an argument that I think is "funny/cool" you'll probably get 30's. Just make good cases and frontline them well then weigh, don't read 3/4 contentions and prep spam your opponents out of the round. That takes all the real world applicable skills out of debate and further skews the advantages towards larger schools who can afford to have a massive amount of prep.

Rebuttal: DO NOT GO FAST. I will tank your speaks. If you dump like 40 responses on their case I'm gonna give you some pretty bad speaks too, give me some good logical responses please. Don't read blippy stuff, warrant your responses well and make good implications. Reading something blippy and then giving the warranting in the summary and saying "they didn't respond to ___" is not going to cut it. Put the warranting in rebuttal or I won't really evaluate it.

Good analytics > Cards 100% of the time, but good analytics + card > good analytics almost all of the time.

IF YOU ARE SECOND SPEAKING YOU HAVE TO FRONTLINE EVERYTHING (you can concede delinks and kick out of arguments but if you wanna go for something, frontline it completely.... I don't want any of that east coast bs)

ALL defense/turns that aren't frontlined in rebuttal are 100% conceded, don't try to respond in second summary cause I won't flow it.

Summary: DO NOT GO FAST. Defense is sticky if it wasn't responded to. Your extension should be thorough, you have 3 minutes so I don't want a lackluster extension of case. "EXTEND JOHN 18" is not an extension, I don't extend authors I extend arguments, so do that pls. Weighing is really important. Really Really Really important pls do it...

Final: DO NOT GO FAST. Most of your final should be weighing. I want a wholistic view of the round, line by line finals are fine ig but I'd rather you tell me why exactly you're winning the round. Your mission should be to make me do as little work as possible. I don't wanna go through the flow for 15 minutes and make a decision, walk me step by step through why I should vote for you.

On weighing: weighing that has to do with the actual arguments themselves will always come before "oh ours is bigger". I'll evaluate scope/timeframe/magnitude/etc weighing mechs, but if your weighing makes me go "that was smart/cool", I'll probably vote for you.

Random stuff:
If I hear you say " they conceded ____" or "they didn't respond to ___" when they clearly did, you're probably getting a 27. That gets on my nerves so much.

Be funny in crossfire and during speeches, I'll be way more likely to vote for you and give you higher speaks if you're funny.

Don't read struc-vi framing if you're ignorant and don't know what you're talking about

Don't commodify issues with your fake K's, if you don't believe in what you're running, don't run it pls

Don't be a bad person (racist, sexist, etc)

Make a GOOD Kanye reference and you'll get 30 speaks. (one for each partner, don't make the same reference thats lame)

Funny contention names give +.3 speaks

Please do not read identity based arguments if you don't identify with those groups...

Harvey Li Hire

Cale McCrary Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 28, 2022 at 10:41 AM CDT

hi! i'm cale and i'm the director @ westlake in austin

email: cmccrary@eanesisd.net

Overall:

be kind, accommodating, and read cool arguments. I'll vote for anything you win & extend, but I'll give good speaks if you make the round a pleasant, safe, & interesting place for everyone to be :)

any speed is cool, but i really appreciate clarity. i find i can flow anything when signposting is good and doc isn't skipping around a ton, but my threshold goes down the less clear and organized you are.

ld stuff below. anything is cool in pf, just fl in 2nd rebuttal & extend defense after it's frontlined.

Argument specifics:

Policy: 1

Cap: 1

Theory/T: 2

Non-Cap K: 2-3

Phil: 4

Tricks: 4

Policy: cp/da rounds are my comfort zone and fav to judge. won't judge kick by default. i'll hold the line on the 2ar blowing up 1ar theory blips if the abuse isn't extreme re: condo/pics. otherwise, do you and read fun stuff :)

Cap: this is my comfort lit base, and a lot of my favorite arguments to write/read. can fs vote for cap good if you win the lbl.

Theory: don't have strong enough convictions on any paradigm issues to give you defaults. do whatever. PICs are good & condo is prob good, but down to vote otherwise. fine for T too, but dislike nebel debates. would be a 1, but people blitz thru stuff like i have it in the doc. never read args about what someone is wearing or looks like.

K: happy to judge it. familiar w/ a few lit bases (afropess, setcol, queer-pess), just less experienced overall. i'm cool w/ K affs and non T stuff, just make it clear what you're defending. in general, i struggle most in K rounds where the 2n is a long overview w/ implicit clash. be clear on the lbl and i'm happy to eval anything. not down w/ non-black afropess.

Phil: should be ok with basic Kant stuff but probably not going to know what's going on w/ anything beyond that. prob need 80% speed.

Tricks: presumption, permissibility, and standard skep stuff i'm fine. if you're reading a mildly tricky truth testing aff or a hijack in your 1n i'm ok. if you're reading a billion a priori blips and stuff like 'eval after the 1ac,' i'm probably just not going to give you the quality of RFD you're looking for.

Allie Robinson Westlake

Justin Shim Hire 8 rounds

Adeel Syed Hire None

Zain Syed Westlake

caroline wehring Westlake

Leo Weihe Hire 8 rounds

Daniel Yang Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom:

Inaugural Joseph F Uhler Memorial Intrasquad Classic

2022 — Austin, TX/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

Judges