I did PF for 4 years (grad '22)

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

General PF Substance Stuff

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

Theory:

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

K's:

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

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

I wrote all of this like 3 years ago when I used to actually be a debater. I still believe in (almost) all of it, but keep in mind that I'm even worse at flowing than I used to be. If I'm judging I just want a chill round, so pls don't scream at me (or spread at me). If you start spreading I'll stop flowing and give you a really sad look to show how sad it makes me. Don't make me sad.

(IMPORTANT)- If I see you participating in annoying/problematic frat bro clouty debate culture, in or out of round, I will be downing you with 25's. This is meant for everyone but I mostly see it in the teams from big schools. These types of offenses include making sexist comments (regardless of your intention), bickering about teams that have less resources than you, or anything that makes people very uncomfortable.

TLDR - Don't spread, read prog args if you can, extend + frontline + weigh in later speeches, make the round interesting, and don't be problematic.

Debate paradigm

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,

Hi, I debated at Westlake for 4 years in PF. I was a pretty okay debater and my first speaker carried me (@AlexRodgers), but I generally know how debate works

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 (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.

Don’t just spam a bunch of cards in rebuttal, be persuasive

Poking fun at your opponents arguments 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 pt.2-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 99% 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: I will vote for any shell if you win it, even if I don't believe in it. With that being said, if the round is a wash then I'll just vote on whatever I believe in.

• 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- I don't understand them super well, I'm a lot more experience in theory debates but I'll try my best to evaluate it.

• Disruption > discourse x400000
• Word PIC's (pf versions of them) are good
• Good chances that I'll vote 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 obliterate ur speaks

Constructive: DO NOT GO FAST. I will tank your speaks if your case is over 900 words. (I'm 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)

Funny contention names give +.3 speaks

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

I debated at Saint Mary's Hall 8 years ago. Since then, I've been coaching and judging PF, LD, and some policy.

I'm currently a coach for Magnolia and Del Norte, and Director of PF at Victory Briefs.

I'm formerly the Director of Speech and Debate at Westlake HS and Corona del Sol.

cale@victorybriefs.com

SpeechDrop works too

General:

Read whatever you want, at whatever speed you want, provided you are clear. Debate is hard work, so I'll work hard to flow closely and give you a good decision, but absent clarity I can't do that. This means you should be explicitly line-by-lining arguments, slowing for tags/analytics, signposting, and making your doc organized. When I'm not confident in a decision, I can usually trace it back to one of the above elements.

I won't 'gut-check' or hand wave away your opponents' argument because you think it's silly or under warranted. Engage in the argument- if it's as frivolous as you're suggesting, doing so should be easy. I will, however, readily intervene if an argument being read is unsafe or morally repugnant.

Finally, be kind to each other. I am a teacher and would appreciate if you treated each other the same way you would in a classroom- that means all students should feel safe and respected in the round. This includes arguments that insert screenshots or other personal information about your opponent: save for disclosure arguments, this is not the place.

Counterplans: I will judge kick the CP. I am good for competition and process based counterplans, and while I won't hack for it, limitless condo is a strong default (less so in LD given speech times). Meaningful engagement in a competition debate is strongly preferred to a blippy cp theory claim or a wall of uncontextualized, 3 word perms.

Theory: Always send interps at a minimum, and meaningfully slow down for anything you extemp. Please also lbl your opponent's theory hedge- these debates are least tolerable when paradigm issues are being cross-applied on three different pages with minimal interaction. Also keep in mind I am not actively cutting positions in LD or Policy, so caselists on T aren't going to mean much to me.

Ks: Good for it, just get really lost when you're super overview heavy in the 2n. Do lbl work, and assume I'm not steeped in your literature. In general, the more clear and material your impacts and alternative are, the easier it will be for me to vote here.

Tricks: If the argument has a warrant, implication, and is delineated in the doc/in cross, I am open to voting for it. This means, for example, something like "I am the greatest conceivable being" I am not good for, but a fw trigger is fine.

Phil: Comfortable with Kant, Hobbes, Baudrillard, and other 'normal' LD stuff, but inexperienced beyond that. If it isn't a Kant 1ac, I would probably err against being too tricky.

PF: Extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. Come to round ready to debate (be 'pre-flowed' and have set up the email chain if you're using one).

contact info:

.

js84684@eanesisd.net or justinshim04@gmail.com

* add me to email chain & send cases and rebuttal docs if u read it

4 yr debater for westlake

paradigm is incomplete, ask in round if you're gonna pull something, no stupid questions *probably

.

pretty experienced with "policy"/"larp"/"trad", decently experienced with theory, some experience with topical ks, tricks, friv theory, less experienced with non-topicals ks

.

specific takes

- weighing is an arg/impact magnifier

- default util, competing interps, presume neg

- if u want presumption for [aff, 1st, 2nd] just make an arg before ff

- no preference for rvi's good/bad

- open source disclosure good, paraphrase bad, (not to strongly opinionated, but be conscious of the circuit meta)

- debate is a game, steal prep but dont get caught & same thing with miscut/misconstrued ev & also the same thing with speech times

I did pf at Westlake for 4 years

- Tech > Truth

- I will evaluate anything that is not exclusionary

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

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

- Send docs before speech for >250wpm

- Have fun

@zainsyed78666@gmail.com

2.5 years out or so. I've been out of the game for a minute, but when I debated I was relatively down for whatever. Went to the TOC, debated a K one time, all that stuff. Just keep it clear, be nice, and send me speech doc if you plan on going super quick.

Read prog arguments at your own risk. I'll try my best to evaluate, but outside of disclosure and paraphrasing, they were never my forte.