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

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

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online Debate Update:

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

PF Overview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

add me to the email chain: krishivmanyam@gmail.com

pretty standard tech judge imo

defense isn't sticky - everything in ff needs to be in summary

frontline in 2nd rebuttal

all argument is both summary and ff have to beextended, warranted, and weighed for it to be on my ballot

speed:

Frankly not the best with flowing so send speechdocs if you’re gonna spread

theory:

don't have too much experience with theory outside of disclo and parphrasing but I can probably evaluate most shells as long as they are clearly explained and warranted.

my personal beliefs are that friv theory and paraphrasing are bad, and disclosure is good, but I will not hack for these args.

Non-Topical Positions/Ks

have close to zero experience with these and probably can't evaluate them at any level

if you want to run these, please strike me

Speaks:

as long as you are respectful and don't cheat, you wont get lower than a 27

Speaks are capped at 27.5 in any varsity pf round if you dont sent constructive speechdocs

I will boost speaks if you:

- Send Rebuttal speechdocs(+0.2)

- Read only cut cards in Constructive and Rebuttal(+0.1)

- Weigh in Rebuttal(+0.1)

- Take less than 2 mins to compile and send all evidence(+0.2)

tech>truth

email: apeng@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org

tl;dr

run anything you want as long as it does not exclude anyone from the round by exploiting any disparity between teams (anything racist, xenophobic, abelist, etc)

i'll evaluate based off my flow but warranted analytics>blippy cards

second rebuttal must frontline all offense and/or collapse; pls collapse in summary & nothing new in ff

theory & prog: theory's fine please don't run friv; K's are fine, but I'm not super experienced with it, but know what you are doing, and please have solvency

long version, look below (borrowed from tq)

You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow strictly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. Please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.

You also don't have to extend your opponent's link if you're going for impact turns, but you can if you want to.

Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseread taglines if you are going fast. I beg of you. In case, rebuttal, everything. No, “thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Also, please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Whether or not the tournament is online I will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. Don’t send Google Docs and then delete them after the round, send either a word doc or paste the text into the body of the email.

Weighing

Weighing = great. Do it.

You still need to win sufficient offense on your weighed argument though—please don’t try to kick out of terminal defense through things like try-or-die weighing, I’m more than happy just voting on one team’s argument having the higher risk than the other team’s argument, especially if both terminalize to extinction.

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is best.

Don't use "probability weighing" as a chance to read new defense. Probability = strength of link in my view, if you win an argument and warrant it then it is probable. General reasons why your argument is a better link, i.e. actor analysis and historical precedent are fantastic, just don’t use this to insert 27 new responses.

Clarity/contextualization/strength of link are not weighing mechanisms – just explain why your argument is more important than your opponents’ assuming that both sides have won their offense.

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is way more important than impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).

On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Please make frontlining substantive. What I mean by that is actually reading warrants/evidence when frontlining instead of saying “no internal link/warrant/context” and arguments along those lines. Technical responses are fine when paired with substantive responses, but don't read 2 minutes of "1.) no warrant 2.) no impact 3.) no context 4.) the evidence is miscut 5.) we postdate…"

Progressive

All arguments in this section are fair game, I’ve read basically everything you can think of at some point.

Theory:

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counter interp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you’re speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive– just read this off of your CI or as a turn on their interpretation. Please still read a counterinterp.

If you read disclosure theory, you must have good disclosure norms—I will probably check.

I will never vote on an out-of-round violation other than disclosure/round reports and the like.

Don’t read blippy IVI sand then blow up on them — make it into a shell format.

Theory unaccessible is not a fantastic argument—there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to anything else.

Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so.

Also, theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Extra

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends and the less prep you steal, the higher your speaks will be!

TOC:

Let’s move quickly, TOC rules say your prep starts during evidence exchange

Go like 85% of normal tech speed haven’t judged in a minute

* * * * *

I debated for three years on the national circuit for College Prep. I now privately coach.

Add me to the email chain: wpirone@stanford.edu.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has become egregiously long over the years so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can argue anything you want in front of me. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with. I enjoy voting on creative, fun arguments I haven't heard before.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow directly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. That said, please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

I tend to be very facially expressive when judging—it can help you know which args to collapse on and which to kick. If I'm vibing with something you're saying, I'll nod along with it during your speech. Argument selection is critical to my ballot—identify the best possible collapse strategy, go for the right argument, and do solid comparison on it.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, just make a warrant why I should evaluate the round differently. I'm open to almost everything.

Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested, you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal links in summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm: I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This also applies to responses such as "they don't prove xyz" or "they don't explain who what when where why"—make actual arguments instead.

Well-warranted analytics are great, blippy analytics are a headache.

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better (larger, faster, more probable, etc). On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Theory:

I'll tolerate theory. I'm chill with any shell as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me. Friv is fine, just make it funny (dinosaur/shoe/no evidence theory is interesting, disclose rebuttal evidence is boring).

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA.

If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win. The definition of what constitutes an "RVI" is irrelevant.

K:

I will evaluate topical kritiks. I'm relatively comfortable with Baudrillard, biopolitics, cap, imperialism, and security—anything else is a stretch so please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read a Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks (especially if you indict the methodology of specific studies from their case).

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way) you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument. Similarly, rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Totally open to theory against these though – just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant, anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

These are fun, but never voting for unwarranted blips like ROTO or “eval after the 1ac.” Paradoxes, skep, etc are ok.

GOATs:

I aspire to judge similarly to Ilan Ben-Avi, Ishan Dubey, and Ryan Jiang.

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I always default to the first speaking team.

Speaks:

I award speaks based on fluency and in-round strategy. Humor also helps.

Most importantly, have fun! Let me know before/after the round if you have any questions or want extra feedback.

—WP

I'm a junior at Quarry Lane.

30 Speaks if you run a crazy contention

I have competed in PF for about 1.5 years and I've been to TOC Sophomore year.

I really respect the "public" aspect of debate. Though I am a flow judge, I do enjoy more thorough and comprehensive debates over jaw spasming to speak at 200 words per second. To put it simply: debate like you would for a flow judge, I'm not fine with spreading, I'm fine with theory, I will vote off the flow only, but do not go 200 wps.

I really, really do appreciate non-stock contentions. I will boost speaker points if you run a true non-stock contention.

Have fun debating. If you're a novice, take it light. Ease into the game, stick to the flow. No one cares what tournaments you win as novice, they care about what tournaments you win as Varsity. Play in the novice division not to win, but to learn. Also, if you are spreading in any novice division, I WILL DROP YOU. if you run theory in any novice division, that's kind of funny.

Never hesitate to ask questions after round. It is your job to ask questions and my job as a judge to help you to be a better debater in later divisions. Please do not include me in the email chain. I will only check evidence if a side asks me specifically to read it.

Last thing: Please dress formal, you won't show up to a basketball game wearing sweatpants and no shirt. Similarly, don't show up to the debate without looking presentable.