I did public forum debate for 4 years at Westlake (graduated 2022), qualified to the TFA twice and the TOC once. SPEECHDROP, don't email me.

Tech>truth. I can evaluate a flow

I don't have any topic knowledge but it shouldn't matter. Bring up everything you want me to know in speech.

Don't go too fast. I haven't debated for a while and was never great with too much speed, especially if you're unclear. I evaluate MY flow, so I can only evaluate the responses and weighing that I was able to hear and flow in round.

Don't say anything offensive or I'll tank your speaks and potentially down you.

Be respectful to everyone in round or I'll tank your speaks.

As far as progressive argumentation goes, I'm fine with theory and probably okay with K's (I ran a couple cap Ks but otherwise am not super familiar with any others, though I generally know how they work. also keep in mind I did PF). Friv theory is fine, but my threshold for responding to it will be lower than it would be for a regular shell. Extend all parts of a theory shell and the underviews that you want to be considered in summary/final.

Disclosure is good but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Paraphrasing is probably bad but I'm more lenient to it than a lot of judges and I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Content/trigger warnings are good and it will be difficult to sell me on tw bad theory, but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it.

Second rebuttal has to frontline. Summaries have to extend everything you're going for (defense is not sticky) with warranting (NOT just card names and jargon) and should collapse. Everything in final needs to be in summary. You should point it out if your opponents bring up new stuff in final so that I can scratch it off in case I didn't catch on. With the exception of second constructive, arguments are dropped if they aren't covered in the next speech.

I presume by flipping a coin unless told to do otherwise in round.

I don't look at evidence unless I'm told to call for it/it becomes a major point of contention. Indicts need to have clear warranting.

PLEASE weigh. Your defense is probably not as good as you think it is and I will need weighing to evaluate the round. Strength of link is not a real weighing mechanism. Probability usually isn't either. If your opponent reads responses as "probability weighing" or does strength of link just point it out and tell me to scratch it off my flow so I don't have to evaluate it.

If you egregiously misconstrue evidence, I will drop you. So far I have been relying on kids to point this out during round, but from now on if I notice it and its badyou're done.

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 vote off grand cross

no english????????

click this

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 mid 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- 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 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 yeet ur speaks

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

Funny contention names give +.3 speaks

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

did pf @ westlake

tech>truth

please:

-weigh

-extend fully (uniqueness, link, impact)

-collapse

pointers:

I won't know the topic too well so I run niche args at your own risk

Don't speak too fast, I can't flow fast

If you have any questions ask before round

plz preflow & signpost

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

She/Her

Westlake 22

I have participated in PF for the last four years.

You can debate whatever you want and I will evaluate it, however I want there to be a certain level of clarity and logic in your arguments. Do not be offensive and be respectful. Have fun!

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

Pf{

I do this event

}

ld + cx + ws + congress + any speech event{

I don't do this event

}

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

I debated at Westlake for 4 years.

I can’t hear that well so please speak clearly if you’re talking fast unless you want docked speaks.

Not familiar with progressive argumentation, you can run it if you want practice just don’t trust I can evaluate it without explanation.

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions!

Evidence or anything goes to cmwehring@gmail.com

I flow cross

First rebuttal must frontline

Second rebuttal must extend case

Former Model UN

I am a lawyer, attorney, litigator, jurist, procurator, legalist, pro clash Royale player, jurisprudent, and legal practitioner

truth > tech

all sources must be from fox news or newsmax

paraphrasing good norm

pro must be flowed with the color red

don't add me to the chain: krissywuwu2003@gmail.com

speaks are given based on your GPA

I default on non-sophomores

I vote off grand cross and height