Im a flay judge

Speak slowly im to lazy to write fast. if i miss it i wont evaluate it

im an a somewhat tech>truth but if your argument is completly wrong (ex. 1+1=8791738279164614) then i won't vote for you

If you frontline is in second summary then i will ignore it cause that's annoying.

if you use theory or run a k I will down vote you because it’s inherently unfair to smaller debate clubs/schools

if you make a debate joke in round i will give you 30 speaks as long as its not racist homophobic or offensive.

I like clash. No clash i vote neg.

i will not call for cards unless i am told to.

In cross i like sarcasm but if you start yelling then i will give you the lowest speaks i can

King Update:

Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for teams that don't send all case and rebuttal evidence before the speech

I debated for four years on the national circuit and now coach for Westlake

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: ilanbenavi10@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us

Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments

I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

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.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

Part III - Weighing

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

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

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. 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

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go

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

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format

*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

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

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

FW:

I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first

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 the happier your speaks will be.

Hi! My name is Anchal and I have been competing in Public Forum for 3 years. Keep it simple, make sure you have good roadmaps, warrants, and impacts that are extended throughout the debate. WEIGH in your speeches and do the weighing comparatively. Good with speed, don't spread (send speech docs if you do). Clean cut cards + fast evidence exchanges pls.

 If you have any further questions I would be happy to answer them in round.

Hi!

- Leander HS ‘22, UT Speech ‘26

- Mostly extemp, with some experience in CX, LD, congress, and impromptu

Some basic stuff:

• Racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. is an automatic drop (last place in speech, loss with minimum speaks in debate)

• Send speech docs (or questions after the round, etc) to ibhsdocs@gmail.com

• Use a tw/cw if needed

Extemp/IEs

This is the event I have the most experience with (it’s also my favorite :)

I want to learn! Tell me something interesting! Most importantly: have fun! If you seem excited about the topic, I'll get excited about the topic and about your speech!

Debate

Spreading is fine if I have the doc. If I don't then slow down on anything you want me to flow.

I don't know any specific K literature very well so please explain your advocacy.

Tech > truth except for the obvious like bigotry.

I listen to cross but I don't flow it unless you bring it up in a speech.

Unless the tournament says otherwise, open cross/flex prep is fine with me as long as it's fine with both debaters/teams.

Specific arg types:

• Theory: my favorite off case. Make sure you extend your interp, violation, standard, and impact all the way through if you want me to vote on your theory. I default to granting RVIs but my threshold for a successful no RVI argument is low.

• Kritiks: explain them well. Make sure your links are specific and clear.

• Counterplans and disads: nothing specific. They're fine.

I like meme cases and I'll vote them up if they technically win the flow.

Speaks are awarded on strategy, word economy, and demeanor (ex: use of humor, not being overly aggressive during cross, etc.).

Congress

Follow parliamentary procedure. PO starts in the last rank that breaks (ex: in a chamber where the top 3 break to the next round, the PO will start at 3rd place) and moves up or down from there. Please clash.

As a bonus for reading the paradigm, before the round starts, tell me your favorite type of tea and I'll give you +0.5 speaks.

"The subversive intellectual enjoys the ride

and wants it to be faster and wilder;

she does not want a room of his or her own,

she wants to be in the world, in the world with others

and making the world anew."

-Jack Halberstam, The Wild Beyond: With and For the Undercommons

I love debate. Enough to give it 6 years of my life and likely many more. I have made a point to engage in every format and have made pretty good progress in that goal. I love the tech of Policy, NFA-LD, NPDA, but do heavily enjoy rhetorical presentation in forms like BP or PF. I'm currently a college debater and am always learning new things, but I promise to listen closely, judge with as open of a mind as possible, and offer feedback to help you improve.

I view debate as competitive story-telling. Both sides are here to tell me a story about the topic. This effects how I view most questions in debate. As a quick outline toward earning my ballot, however, I care about three things:

1) The Contents of Your Arguments

2) Why they are Important

3) How they Compare and Interact with Your Opponent's Arguments

If you articulate to me these three things better than your opponent, I will very likely vote for you. Other than that, I want to hear your voice in the story that you want to tell. Please run the arguments and have the debate that you are most comfortable with, in the style that you are most comfortable with. I love new ideas and I love clash. If you can promise these two things, I will be entertained.

While like most judges, I will vote for an argument if it's clearly won, here's an FAQ list for how I tend to lean on different controversial issues in the community:

Tech -----x-------------- Truth

Good Analytic --x----------------- Bad Card

Contextualized links --x----------------- Uncontextualized Studies

New ideas -----x----------------- Prewritten arguments I've heard 1000 times

Public Forum:

While I appreciate the more rhetorical framework that PF is supposed to exist in, I like concrete impacts and a story for why those impacts matter and how they relate to the resolution. I love evidence comparison, impact analysis, and analytical examples.

I'm likely more open to theory or more progressive argumentation than your typical judge, but I love traditional argumentation as well. Tech isn't a tool for bullying or obfuscation. The burden of proof is on you to explain your argument to your opponents. If your opponents don't get your argument, that's your fault.

An argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact for me to consider it. This weird 'tricks' trend where teams sneakily toss in an independent line about voting for them isn't tech or line-by-line debate. It will only lower your speaks and my opinion of you as a debater.

I lift my pen up and stop flowing after the time for your speech runs out(I time independently).

Don't be rude to your opponents during Crossfire and allow the other team roughly equal speaking time(I keep track and it effects speaks).

Also when it comes to framing what's in the resolution/what it looks like, I am far more convinced by probability evidence("The Japanese Prime Minister says Article 9 Revision would be this") then debate theory analysis("this is the most fair ground for a debate"), please still make voter impact comparisons however if this ends up being the clash but I'd prefer to at least start in the lit base for determining what the resolution means.

On the "sticky defense" conversation. I like arguments to be extended in the summary. That being said, I don't need you to repeat word for word every argument made. For instance "extend our 5 points of defense on their first contention" would work well for me especially if you then contextualize those 5 points to the weighing.

On Kritiks, I'm honestly uncertain what that means in context of Public Forum debate. Can you make arguments or entire contentions based in "critical" theories of power? Absolutely!! In fact, when I debate in PF those are my favorite arguments to make. However, in PF you are explicitly given ground to defend which can run you into uniqueness problems. For instance, on the Japan Article 9 resolution, you can absolutely tell me that deterrence is part of a militarist mindset and even if it does technically "work" to solve an individual problem like Chinese aggression in the South China Sea that it creates a type of society or outlook that is very negative. This works because it makes sense to me on face that revising Article 9 would be a dramatic departure toward a militarist mindset/society then the Status quo. However, if you were to tell me that capitalism is bad, I'd agree with you but become confused as to how Capitalism would be any different between the squo and an article 9 revision. In plan-based formats like Policy this is solved by creating a counterplan(called an alternative) that shifts away from Capitalism but I'm unsure how you'd resolve the uniqueness issue in PF. However, if you think your argument makes sense in a PF paradigm, then I'd love to hear it.

Policy

I want clash and comparison, not scripts and uncontextualized framework fights.

Like most judges, I view the Negative as having the burden of rejoinder of a prepared affirmative opponent. What this means in practice:

Conditionality, I lean Aff. 1-2 CPs and 1 Alt plus the squo is very reasonable for fruitful engagement over the Affirmative. Every added Counter-advocacy after that is exponentially more potential negative worlds added and I lean more to depth over breadth when it comes to clash and do believe complaints about time from the Aff can be very valid(Having only 30 seconds in the 2AC per CP for instance is often not a very productive debate). That being said, if you win the condo debate, you win it and I will do my best to evaluate it fairly (see theory for more).

I define dispositionality as "if there is offense on the shell, the Neg can't just kick it." it's my default view on disads and I could be persuaded to apply it to CPs if the Aff put in the work. I will not reanimate turned Das though if they're not extended in the 1 and 2ar. You have to make the strategic decision to go for them.

On sneakier Counterplans like Consult, Process, Actor, Delay; I need direct solvency advocates to buy these as legitimate and I need an explanation of how they are functionally competitive. If consulting is a ten minute phone call from the President, I don't see why that can't happen while Congress passes the plan. If no one runs theory, then I'll take it for granted but I'd encourage your opponents to go for it.

Perms are advocacies. While they are a test of competition, don't think of them as a point of terminal defense but an explanation of what the world with both the Plan and Counterplan would look like. If the Counterplan isn't at all competitive then the world is only better off, however, even if there is functional tradeoffs to the Perm, I could be convinced the net benefits outweigh. This means I would like it if 1AR and 2AR extensions of the perm fleshed out what the world of the perm would look like and how it resolves the net benefits of the CP.

2AR and 2NR collapses need to pick an advocacy and tell me why that is better. I will not judge kick a CP for you unless there is explicit theory telling me otherwise (as in interp with standards/voters). Same thing with the Aff, you get either the plan or a perm, not both. Your job in the last speech isn't to show how you've won the debate via a thousands cuts, but to synthesize all the elements in the debate and give me a clear story of why I should vote for you.

Kritiks:

Generally, I love critical analysis. Like most things, I prefer specific judge direction and comparison.

I need something to give me uniqueness usually an alternative. Alternatives can be as simple as a re-orientation or be full counterplans, but if I buy they have questionable solvency, your kritik impacts become non-unique really fast. I think in some ways, judges let alternatives get away with murder when I think alternative solvency should be a serious consideration when it comes time to vote.

Ideally, framework just tells me how to evaluate the round and contextualizes the links and alt to let me know what level I am evaluating these on (pre-fiat discourse, policymaking, knowledge frames, etc.). I love framework that actually gives fair opportunity to both sides and just lets me know how to compare a plan text to a re-orientation alternative. I dislike I-win statements that get introduced in the 2NC just in case the Neg want to kick the alt. Kicking the alt can be a winning strategy but I would encourage the Aff to point out that if there's no solvent alternative to capitalism than producing anti-capitalist knowledge frames probably doesn't have the planet-saving potential the Neg claims.

That being said, I believe in systemic causality way more than brinks and love root-cause argumentation. However, Serial policy failure means nothing unless contextualized to this Aff's policy.

Links should be specific and compelling. The more generic or nonspecific the link, the more convinced I am that a perm is net-beneficial. A link of omission unless under very specific circumstances is simply not a link. Framework will also majorly affect how seriously I take your link. If I buy material proximal causes are what I should care about, rhetoric becomes a lot harder to justify as important. This is also why the Aff arguing there's a different root cause to an ideology that the Neg doesn't solve can go a long way in applying defense to the link and alt.

For the Affirmative on kritiks, specificity applies as well. If the Neg's position is that capitalism creates a harmful ontology, I don't want to hear about how capitalism has been good historically for material luxuries. I think kritiks can have this weird mystical aura where we just assume the Aff now has the burden of defending all of capitalism but that's often not the case. The more specific the defense of your plan, the more I'm likely to buy it.

Critical Affirmatives:

I despise what's become known as the clash of civilization. I think there is value to exploring the stories of the topic, I've always thought that the scope of the topic being defined as the USFG is dumb. However, I think a limitless topic is harmful to clash. The way I currently see it, debates are storytelling and topics are genres. The farther away from the genre your story is, the harder it is for me to learn about the genre or to see clash with opposing stories. The less germane to the topic you are, the easier it is for the Neg to convince me that clash and literature education have been lost.

If you are a T-USFG team that reads the same scripts about predictability and fairness with no contextualization or comparison to the Aff than I am a probably a bad judge for you.

However, if you are a T-USFG team that comes prepared with a TVA (topical version of the Affirmative) or an articulation of why a more restrictive understanding of the resolution is best for debate or its participants in a way that's comparative to the Aff's impacts than I'm a great judge for you. I don't want to be left with a situation where I have to decide whether accessing radical research or advocacies is more important than predictability, if this is the situation I will likely lean Aff but if you give me a way to weigh clash against alternative epistemologies than I'll defer to the weighing in the round. Just remember that material death is different than social death when designing the TVA.

I believe judges have to take t-usfg framework seriously so as to have predictable core generic for the negative. Therefore, neither team should expect me to do the heavy lifting for them in the framework debate. Do not imply impacts, make them explicit and compare them!

Fairness is not a voter unless fleshed out. I'm unsure what fairness looks like in debate. By design it is an asymmetric game and in some ways, the different positions people find themselves in is very cool and educational. My worst fear for debate is becoming replaceable with AI that autogenerates cases. We are all different humans, with different styles, brains, and perspectives. I want to hear what is interesting to you.

For the Aff, Framework for Clash is awesome. Providing a debate framework that still allows Neg clash and good educational debate to happen will start to evaporate the Neg's offense. Being able to provide Neg ground for engagement will do wonders for both speaks and overcoming ground and predictability standards.

Outside of framework, I would love Neg clash on the core of the 1AC. There's a lot of literature out there and a well-put together negative strategy on a critical affirmative would be at the very least rewarded with high speaks and seems like a much better way to win as well. Attack their assumptions, attack their methods, provide counter-advocacies. Tell me an alternative story.

To evaluate these debates, I compare offense and whether the 1AC advocacy is net better or worse for the world. Usually the impacts (such as harmful ideologies) are attached to the squo which means solvency is important for both sides (solvency can take many forms beyond traditional policymaking including discourse, affect, debate community impacts, etc) . This doesn't mean the 1AC advocacy has the burden of solving all of white supremacy to gain offense (discourse is probably a linear impact scenario), however, it does mean that I need a specific analysis of what the harm is and what the 1AC advocacy does to solve them. For example, if whiteness is actually constructed top-down by political economic structures, then poetry probably doesn't do anything to solve those harms.

Attached to this, if you choose to read an argument in debate, you've invited others to clash. The Aff chooses the conversation and have invited the Neg. I dislike the idea that 1ACs or certain parts of 1ACs are too personal to be involved in the debate. If that's the case, please save yourself the trauma and leave that out of the speech.

My threshold for dismissing "conservative" arguments is very high. Especially if I'm not sure what a conservative even is anymore. If an argument wouldn't get a professor or teacher fired, I think it's educational to learn how to clash with it.

"No perms in a methods debate" doesn't intuitively make sense to me with the caveat that I think that 1ACs should be bounded to their assumptions. If the Aff assumes social death is caused by libidinal investment in institutions, it feels weird that their advocacy would shift to include institutions without in some way having different solvency. Tl;dr I need an articulation from the Negative why one method of activism would trade-off with another.

I am interventionist on Independent voter issues and I judge based on good faith attempts. If you are a team that relies on independent voter issues against the Neg's clash in the debate rather than on articulating your affirmative harms and solvency than I am probably not the best judge for you. Obviously if a Neg team really goes for oppression/dehumanization good or openly racist tropes I will stop the round, but negating the 1AC in a way the Aff didn't expect/want is not constitutive of a procedural issue, neither is a microaggression that we can resolve informally. Also I'd prefer to deal with micro-aggressions w/o the ballot, if a team is actually attempting to do harm in the round than that's a debate safety issue and we should probably stop the round, if it's based on ignorance I would honestly prefer to just stop the debate for a minute, explain the micro-aggression and suggest an alternative way for the team to articulate what they mean rather than make it a procedural debate for the rest of the round. I won't always have the keenest eye and could be ignorant myself, so if there is an issue bothering you that you'd like to address, feel free to interrupt a speech or wait until the speech is over than just mention you'd like it if an argument was made in a more equitable way. We're all learners here and each of us deserve safety in the debate space without the weird competitive game getting in the way.

If you care, in the 2013 NDT Finals, I'd have voted for Emporia SW over Northwestern LV (not that anyone would ever ask me to judge a round when I was in Middle School). In the 2002 CEDA Finals I would've voted for Michigan State CM over Fort Hays RR. Both were very close debates for good reason, but that's just how I fall as a judge in the way I currently see debate and I'm down to discuss debate history with you after the round.

Theory: It's an organized way of explaining that your opponents have somehow violated the rules or desirable norms of debate. I will admit that I have always felt policed by theory so run it at your own risk. That being said, if you win, you win. I have voted in favor of the interp more than the counterinterp despite my own embarrassment at that fact.

Standards are links, voters are impacts, and your interp is the uniqueness. I think there is a tendency of judges to not vote based on the flow and instead glaze their eyes over as if theory is just an invitation to listen to mechanical dialogue then vote up their personal favorite speaker. Though it may get messy, I will do my best to evaluate each theory shell as it's own flow in an offense/defense paradigm.

Also theory is more organized way of making a traditional rhetorical argument around what should be allowed in debate which means I don't necessarily need someone to articulate the debate norm that's been violated as an "interp." More rhetorical substitutes such as "abuse" do just fine as long as I can trace your argument to a rule, a violation, and an impact to that violation.

"We Meets" are terminal defense as it renders the impact nonunique. I am tired of teams not taking the argument seriously and judges letting debaters get away with some of the worst interpretations I have ever seen. If your opponent is arguably topical within your interpretation, I find it hard to take your voters rhetoric seriously. If you are going to run theory in front of me please have a specific interpretation and violation. As for the Aff, if you want to be clever with the We Meet arguments then please do so. To me the violation is the most important part of the t-shell and I wish teams reprioritized it. IT IS A VOTING ISSUE! Expect me to take your interpretation and violation seriously. That part of the flow is my starting question for every theory debate.

Hello, I'm currently in high school and debate Policy and Congress. I also do DI. Now let's get into Paradigm and what I uphold.

Policy: I'm a lay judge I want you to convince me instead of overloading me. I will take Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency. I will focus more on Significance and Inherency because if it is very big it should be focused on almost immediately. CX, I like to see a series of questions that leads to trap the opposing side into admitting a fault. See it like a game of chess that requires clear movement and tactical thinking.

LD: I've debated LD a few times so I can keep up with it. I would like for someone to show me why they're side again convinced me. I would also like for someone to bring articles that are up to date so I can see that the problem they're tackling is truly inherent to their argument. In CX get aggressive attack the opponent's argument and show that yours should be passed but of course stay professional.

Congress: Be a person that stands out whether it be how you present yourself or the number of times you speak and ask questions. In CX get aggressive attack the opponent's argument and show that yours should be passed but of course stay professional.

PFD: Convince me be a persuasive speaker and show that you know the topic well I will take into account the pros and cons. Provide a good offense and defense. In CX get aggressive attack the opponent's argument and show that yours should be passed but of course stay professional.

Hey! I'm Tanay(he/him). I debated Public Forum on the National circuit while at Lexington HS for four years. I will mostly judge Public Forum, and if I'm somehow judging another format, take me as a new judge. TLDR is pretty much the miscellaneous stuff.

Add me to the email chain: tanaydalmia612@gmail.com.

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round if you want me to and if the tournament lets me, just give me time to complete my ballot.

Misc. stuff:

I vote off the flow(tech>truth mostly).

- For my ballot, I begin on the weighing, which tells me which side to look to first. If you tell me another way to evaluate the round, do so in your speech.

- I try to be tabula rasa(go in with no preconceived notions)

- Nothing is sticky. Once it’s dropped, it’s done.

- Weigh. Weigh, weigh, weigh. Weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. Comparative and meta weighing is best.

- I can handle some speed, as long as it's still coherent. If I miss something though, from your speed, that might hurt you when you refer to it later. If you send me speech docs, esp for case and rebuttal, I'm less likely to miss things.

- Logical arguments with no evidence>evidence without warranting

- Don't read blips and blow them up later.

- I don't really presume, so if both teams do something that would make them lose their offense and cause presumption, then I will usually ignore the oversight by both teams and evaluate both, unless I have a reason not to. I hate intervening, make sure to have proper coverage.

- You MUST have evidence properly construed.

Progressive Debate:

I’m not super well versed in progressive debate, whether it be theory, kritiks, etc. However, if you explain your arguments well, I am willing to evaluate them. Do know though, you are probably putting yourself at a little bit of a disadvantage.

Evidence:

Teams can call for evidence, and while the other team is looking for it, no one's prep is used. However, do not take forever and do not steal prep during this time. If you're jotting like a quick note once, I'm fine with it, but not more than that. It wouldn't be fun for anyone if that became an issue. If you take too long to find a piece of evidence, you either have to choose to drop that evidence or take running prep to finish finding it.

Please use good evidence. If one team declares that a piece of evidence is misconstrued, I will look at it on the email chain and if I agree, I'll scratch it off my flow. If it's a huge misconstruction, I might even vote the violating team down and/or reduce speaks. If one team calls for a round-ending evidence challenge, we will follow the tournament's direction on that.

I'm fine with paraphrasing. If there's an issue though, I'll evaluate it the same way I do a misconstruction issue because that is essentially what it is.

Speaks:

If the tournament provides me with a list, I'll use that instead.

My average is 28.5, and I'll move up and down from there.

Novices automatically get 1 point higher than what I would have given them in JV/Varsity.

29.5-30: Superb debating, you didn't have many big flaws or any in your debating and strategy, and you articulated extremely well.

29-29.5: A really good job, a few flaws, the execution was still on point, and articulation was quite good.

28.5-29: Above average, some flaws but I still liked how you did overall, and good articulation.

28-28.5: Pretty average, you did a good job but there were definitely flaws, and you spoke pretty well.

27.5-28: There were some issues with execution, but it was still passable. You might have paused a bunch or seemed confused at times, but I mostly knew where you were.

27-27.5: There were a bunch of flaws or one huge flaw that you probably want to tidy up. Your speaking was lacking in some way, but I see potential.

26-27: Multiple major flaws on your side. Significant misses in speaking.

Lower than 26: Pretty rare, you must have done something really big.

If you say anything homophobic/sexist/etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give the lowest speaks possible. Just don't please.

Final thoughts:

Feel free to ask me anything before and after round. Or just talk, I'm chill with that.

I'll be pretty laid-back, so let's have a good time.

Good luck and have fun!

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com.

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

tl;dr standard fyo flow, i will evaluate the round based on offense that is extended and warranted fully, and ideally comparatively weighed so i don’t have to intervene

about me

hi, i’m daniel! i use any pronouns. please add me to the email chain at dgarepis@uw.edu and if you’d like, check out my youtube channel at youtube.com/@danielgarepisholland. if you are a novice debater, please skip down to the novice section at the bottom.

pf for two years in middle school, two years of trad debate as palo alto gc. one year on the national circuit as palo alto gs. i got a couple bids and went to gold toc my senior year with my partner yash shetty, we also finaled ca states.

basics

speak as fast as you want (if you send a speech doc)

wear whatever you want

i will always give a verbal rfd and feedback/q and a if i can/have time

good analytics = good cards (and analytics >>>>> miscut cards)
extend clearly and collapse strategically on a few pieces of offense

do good weighing in the back half
gon't misgender people or be discriminatory, reserve the right to drop you for it
ideally disclose on the wiki or at the very least send cut cards in the email chain (not share a google doc!)
i will probably blisten to cross but extend in speech. if we skip grand both teams get 1m of prep

evidence

- paraphrase if you’d like, but don’t misconstrue. have cut cards and ideally send them in the doc.

- don’t steal prep when calling for cards, and give cards promptly when they’re called for

- ideally send a doc for constructive and rebuttal if possible. +0.2 if you do (doesn’t apply to novices)

back half

- first summary MUST extend offense (re-explain uniqueness, link chain and impact as well as frontlining) and respond to turns and terminal defense, ideally mitigatory defense as well if you’re going for that argument. ideally you should be collapsing to make this easier for you, you still need to respond to turns if you want to kick out

- i’m not the harshest stickler on extensions, it can be short — spend more time frontlining and weighing than extending. don’t spend all of summary repeating your case!!

- weighing should be done as early as possible. this can be changed with warranting, but sv > extinction > short-circuit > link-in > magnitude > timeframe (unless you give a good reason why) > probability. as annie chen said, "'nuke war is improbable' is not weighing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's a response w no warrant." don't give made up jargon and be comparative.

- in principle, defense is sticky. if someone drops terminal defense but extends the argument, say, into 2nd rebuttal, the argument is done. however, ideally you extend your defense in case i miss it on the flow.

theory

- default to competing interps no rvis. i sorta think rvis are dumb so i have a sorta high threshold to vote off an rvi but it's certainly possible

- i think disclosing and not paraphrasing are good norms so i have a low threshold for them. i have a medium threshold for round reports and other random shells. i have a low threshold for new k affs bad]

- in terms of cws. arguments like poverty or feminism do NOT need a content warning opt out form and there's an argument that doing this is actually bad. non-graphic discussions of sexual violence should have at least a content warning before you begin reading case. graphic descriptions of violence (which i've never actually heard read in round) MUST have an anonymous opt-out form, there's a chance i'll drop you regardless of theory

- another note on content warnings. after events at toc last year, if i find out that you read trafficking or some other possibly triggering argument and only provide an opt out form in front of flows but not lays, i reserve the right to still vote for the shell and tank your speaks

t

- yea ill vote off it

- t shell can be in paragraph form it's fine

k

- i'm by no means an expert at evaluating ks, but please run the argument

- i have a decent amount of experience with k affs, i have a decent understanding of the ideas and lit involved, and i enjoy hearing arguments that challenge normative assumptions

- i'm more comfortable evaluating cap, security, set col, etc. and identity ks than dense postmodernist lit. please warrant and explain rotb well if you want me to vote for the k aff, especially for a non-topical k

Brentwood ‘23, G in the variations of Brentwood GS. Vandy '27

Add me to the chain: eligripenstraw@gmail.com and please label it.

TL;DR Flow, tech over truth.

*Do well warranted comparative weighing or I will be forced to basically intervene-If there is no weighing I will have to intervene for the team who I think won the most case offense and speaks will go down.

Warrant all your responses it will help you so much

Frontline in second rebuttal

Final mirror Summary

I've noticed that I am much less inclined to vote for a team if they skip extensions or just give an unwarranted blip. Please read extensions in summary and final

Read innovative and fun arguments I’ll vote on almost anything

I’ll evaluate Ks if needed but not the greatest experience with them

Theory is fine, I literally have no preferences for specific shells but generally friv theory leads to boring rounds

Default to reasonability and yes RVIs(so read warrants)

I do enjoy reasonability but this shouldn’t scare away theory teams as long as you warrant competing interps

Speed is fine if you can actually enunciate and send a doc. However, if you spread unwarranted or paraphrased evidence I will drop your speaks heavily

I will give my RFD basically no matter what

***Impact turns are my favorite argument so read them, especially if they are in second constructive. 30s if you win Quebec secession

*Highlighting your opponents evidence and reading it in round will give you a speaker boost.

Crossfire is generally boring, a moral dilemma can make it not boring.

Please have fun and try to enjoy the round

If both teams agree, we can have a full lay round and speaks will start at 29.5. See this paradigm for how I will evaluate the round

If you want more info here are some people I generally agree with or you can just ask me before the round

Nihar Sanku

Sully Mrkva

William Hong

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

email: ishraqhossain1738@gmail.com(put me on the email chain)

Del Norte '24

Tech>Truth

• Speed isn't an issue. Just make sure your voice is somewhat comprehendible.
• Weighing is how you win. Comparative link weighing between arguments + reasons why your weighing should be preferred over your opponents is how you break clash and get my ballot.
• Three-minute summaries mean defense is not sticky. Need consistency between summary and final focus.
• I prefer substance rounds but I'm fine with theory(yes RVI's, default competing interps) I wouldn't trust myself to properly evaluate a K.

Hi! I'm Fiona, a pf debater at Cary.

Add me on the email chain: xfionaxhux@gmail.com

Tldr: run any argument you want

General

Hate speech, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. Any violation of this rule will be auto 0L.

Tech > Truth

Signpost! PLEASE! It makes my life easier for flowing and easier for me to follow the round.

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH.

Second rebuttal must frontline. Defense is NOT sticky.

If you're going to go fast, send a doc. I literally cannot flow things really fastly, I need a doc.

If you paraphrase, please provide cut cards.

Speaks depend on the tournament, but they normally start at 28.5. (Blast Lana before a round and I'll boost your speaks).

That being said, for every time you go "I will take x number of prep" I will be docking a speaker point. Just say "I'll be taking running prep" and tell me how much you use -- so much easier.

I don't flow cross, but it's binding.

I'll disclose if the tournament allows it.

Specific Arguments

Policy

Extend link chains and impacts. I can not weigh the round if I have no impacts and warranting for impacts. Also, have an internal link into your impact -- saying a pandemic will cause extinction with no warrant why will not make me happy.

Evidence clash is excessive in pf. Please just weigh or give warranting on which piece of evidence is better. I don't want to intervene and decide what piece of evidence is better, so do it for me or you might be unhappy with your result.

If there is no offense in the round, I presume neg.

I really prefer you line by line everything, if you have an overview tell me where to flow it.

Progressive Debate

I'm a better judge for K than theory.

Ks

I can evaluate both non-topical and topical Ks.

Even though I've read Ks throughout high school, I won't hack for Ks. I'm perfectly fine with voting off of T, extinction outweighs, or anything else that's won on the flow.

The current state of K-affs is far too polarized. There seems to be a common expectation of literal perfection within a K team's advocacy in and out of round. I don't think it should be a sacred argument and this treatment of Ks as sacred deters minority debaters from running identity Ks in the first place.

If you are reading a K, explain your theory of power well, and make implications of why it matters.

Theory

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, DTD.

RVIs need warrants. If they don't have warrants, they are going to lose.

I'm not a fan of TW theory, I think it's used as a cop-out to not talk about non-graphic social issues. That being said, I won't hack against it.

Disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. Again, I won't hack for either disclosure or paraphrasing theory.

Tricks

I don't get tricks, so run them at your own risk.

Hi I'm Molly Huang. I’ve debated pf for 3 years in both national and international tournaments.

My greatest achievements: winning the best debater award for the 2022 High School Debate Tournament hosted in Taiwan and represented Taiwan for the 2021 National Speech and Debate Tournament.

Plz add my email for speech/docs: 1200034molly@gmail.com 

Tech>>Truth 

I am a flow judge. However, it is your responsibility to weigh and tell me why your team is winning this round. I should not be the one weighing for you. Treat me as a judge who knows nothing about this topic and try to be as persuasive as possible.

I usually don't take notes during cross fire, unless I find some points brought up by either team challenging.

I often don't keep track of time. You should be the one doing so.

Don't spread!! Most online tournaments are in US timezone and I live in Taiwan, so if you want to spread send me the speech doc. If you don't send me the speech doc and I missed what you're saying, I would not take that point into RFD. 

Remember debate is about having fun and making improvements.

Most importantly, respect each other! 

Put me on the chain- Ethan.Jacobs@emory.edu

I debated in PF as different variations of Myers Park BJ on the nat circuit

At the end of the day, I adapt to you- run whatever you think will win. This is especially true at the TOC.

Preferences

In order of how comfortable I am with these types of arguments

1. Trad

2. Theory

3. Topical K

4. Non topical K

5. Tricks/anything not listed (strike me)

Weighing- Weighing is the best way for you to avoid judge intervention. Having a good argument is not enough, it needs to be better than your opponents. Saying “We have the biggest number” is not enough. Why is the biggest number important? I think teams should be creative about link-ins, prereqs etc to avoid being “nuked” out of the round by large impacts. Also, many teams throw evidence out of the window when weighing. I often hear arguments like “The government spends less on climate resilience/infrastructure during recessions so we link in/prereq”. These arguments are a lot more powerful when carded.

Evidence Exchange-Please send speech docs with evidence before speeches to keep ev exchange timely. For TOC this is especially expected.

Evidence- Know your evidence well. Even if you didn’t cut it you should know exactly what it says and what the implications are. If you don’t have strong evidence, why are you running the argument? I’d rather see strong analytics than cards that are sus

Presentation- Be persuasive. That means use persuasive examples, slow down on important points, and use rhetoric to your advantage. This doesn't mean I'm a fake tech I just want you to be really good at explaining your warrants. I think this makes rounds a lot easier to judge. Also, doc botting is sooooooo lame. I appreciate that you have done a lot of prep, you should read it! But, you should also spend time looking at your flow and using your analytical skills to win rounds.

Speed- I think it is silly to expect judges and opponents to read off of docs, I will not do this. That being said, I much prefer fast debates- spreading is fine and a viable strategy as long as I can flow what you are saying. The burden is on you to be enunciating so I can understand you. I will yell clear once or twice to let you know I cannot understand but after that it is your choice to adapt.

Theory- Feel free to run theory. Please keep these debates organized. I want the shell extended but idc if its word for word. I am most familiar with disclosure and paraphrasing shells, but am fine evaluating anything as long as its not clearly frivolous. I think that debaters don’t think critically about disclosure and would like to see more teams come prepared to defend positions about contact info, round reports etc. I strongly believe that teams should read a CI against shells, RVI's should only be reserved for extremely friv theory. Don’t spread your shell, I have around one theory round every tournament and am usually a bit out of practice flowing these types of arguments so my pen will be slow.

Topical K’s- Feel free to run these arguments, but have very limited knowledge about literature. The most important thing for me is that you make the argument accessible to everyone in the round. If you are reading complicated cards with a lot of jargon, please spend the time to clarify arguments for me and your opponents. If I can tell you are making an effort to make your arguments accessible, I will give you very high speaks. Do not skimp on extensions, every part of the K should be extended with proper warrants to win. Any ROTB is fine with me, but I appreciate it when debaters engage with each other on this issue. You shouldn't need a ROTB that skews the other team out of the round to win. I am most familiar with Security, if you are reading anything else assume I know nothing. I will listen closely in cross but do not flow (if you ask me to I will). Try to not speak too fast, keep in mind that these topics are not my expertise.

Non-Topical K- See most of the “topical K section”, almost all of it applies here. One thing I will add is that it is EXTREMELY important that there is a justification for not reading an argument that is topical. If this is not present in the speech you introduce the K, I consider it a near TKO if the other team calls you out. I don't like unrealistic alts- I think non-topical arguments are most valid when they remind us that things need to be changed in our world and would like to hear your best ideas on how to actually achieve that change. I am also very receptive to vague alts bad arguments.

Post round me if you want- I submit before I give my RFD though.

Did PF debate from 2020-2024

TLDR: I vote off of the least mitigated link into the most weighed impact.

Weigh comparatively. 9/10 times the team that wins the weighing wins the round. This doesn't mean repeating your impact and saying it's bad. This is showing me why your impact or your link is comparatively better than your opponent's. Framework must have warranting. Explain why your framework precludes all other weighing. Probability weighing isn't an excuse to read new defense.

Send speech docs if you want. If you don't send a speech doc and you spread, it's on you if I miss anything. I prefer slower rounds anyways.

Read theory as soon as the violation happens. If a team didn't disclose, read that in constructive, not rebuttal. No RVIs is dumb. I flow theory a lot slower than substance so send a doc if you are going anything faster than conversational.

Second rebuttal must frontline all offense and all defense on the argument you are going for. I have not seen a single round where this has not been possible. Also, don't be afraid to concede things, even offense. You can always weigh against it in summary.

Defense is not sticky. First summary must extend defense for me to evaluate it. However, if the defense has been dropped, I have a much lower threshold for the amount of work you need to do to extend it.

Debate in good faith, and your speaks will be fine. Don't blip spam, DA spam, miscut cards, or run friv theory with opponents that aren't your friends.

If both teams agree, I can evaluate the round on a different metric or change any part of my paradigm for that specific round.

Rising senior at Lambert

Tech > Truth unless you’re being ridiculous, eg telling me that China’s leader is secretly Reagan

Don’t be a bad person or your speaker points will be the lowest I can give

I was never that good at debate and it’s been a while since then so don’t count on me following your argument dumps at 400 wpm but you can reasonably assume that I will accurately flow most things, including prog (theory, Ks, etc.

Nothing new unless responsive, don’t neglect proper weighing or you’ll probably lose

Humor and jokes are also great when appropriate, but don't go from something like terrorism to a pun please.

To quote Eva Herrick: I like to think I’m a flow judge but honestly, I might have a mid-round identity crisis and just become a lay judge. (proceed with caution)

More importantly, to quote Anaya Joshi: Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socioeconomic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate allows you to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals to their individuality when presenting arguments, I'll drop anyone who reads arguments that may be sexist, racist, or discriminatory in any way. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament, and most importantly, respect yourselves.

⋆˖⁺‧₊☽◯☾₊‧⁺˖⋆

Hello! I'm Tui, a senior at Regis High School. I use he/him pronouns. I've done debate since middle school.

I've never been an extremely technical debater (my views reflect that). That said, I'll try to flow pretty much anything except tricks (check my longer paradigm for my thoughts on prog).

I flow and I always try not to intervene – yet I'm always inclined to vote for the team whose arguments don't require me to take several leaps up the staircase of logic. I'm probably most aptly described as a lazy tech judge.

Do these things and we will have a very smooth round:

1. Extend. If you're going for an argument (contention, turn, advantage, disad), ALL of it (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact) needs to be extended otherwise I will not vote on it.
2. Collapse. A two-minute final focus shouldn't have 5 reasons to vote for you.
3. Weigh. I love good probability and prerequisite weighing. Link-ins need to be weighed otherwise I don't know what to do with them (we link in because _____ AND we're the best link into their case because ____ >>> we link in)
4. Cut your evidence. It's not difficult. Not having cut cards is an independent reason to drop you. Please cut your evidence.

This is a gross oversimplification, but, unless I'm told otherwise,here's how I evaluate round:

1. Theory/K (if there are both, give me a reason to prefer one or the other)

2. Framework

3. Weighing

4. Cleanest piece of offense

I default to the first speaking team, but if I'm defaulting, your default speaks are probably 27s.

Otherwise, have fun! (make Taylor references). If you want, I have a longer paradigm which you can read here. There's some (unimportant) jargon, so feel free to clarify anything with me. I recommend you check out this website and this website if anything is confusing. If you want more resources, check this out as well!

If you want good speaks, be kind, be funny, and be strategic :p

ey bro these are my prefs

cross x

- i don't vote off cross and i don't rlly listen to it either

- if u bring up smth from cross in ur speech and attack them on it tho i will listen to that

- don't be rude but asserting urself is fine, if ur opp rants for too long PLS cut them off

frontlining/responses

- frontlining pls!!!!!!!!! if u don't i'll vote for the other side unless u do smth rlly impressive to change my vote later on in the round

- pls use indicts!! i hate back and forth of ev with no interaction (explain why ur ev is better!)

- extend defense and offense in summary or the team has all the offense against ur case

weighing

- weigh pls - must be comparative, if u don't weigh i will be sad

- overall i love love pre-reqs, doing them will def help u win

- if you don't weigh i'll do my own weighing for u which u may or may not like

- extend ur link ALONG WITH ur impacts in weighing

- i actually like framework a lot unless u don't extend it and say how u fit in

- weigh worlds, explain ur world, then say theirs and why its worse

final focus/summary

- don't go for too much pls condense

- big picture BIG PICTURE and NARRATIVE

- weigh worlds/ weighing is a must here

- i vote mainly off summary and ff

- make it very clear for me and tie it all together. line by line is ok but wont give u an advantage

theory/kritiks

- i don't rlly like theory or ks they're too weird (but if the team actually makes a real violation i'll buy it, not smth like paraphrase theory)

- overall just run theory when it's ABSOLUTELY necessary

- personally i feel ppl should actually debate the topic lol

speaks

- be ENTHUSIASTIC, speak with emotion. try to paint a clear picture for what ur world looks like

- spreading is okay, just be clear, if not, i just wont flow

29-30: u did everything above, clean speech, amazing job

27-28: ure decent a lil messy tho

26.1-27: dropped case, poor strategic decisions

<26: u said some rlly offensive things in round (you were racist, homophobic, etc.)

if u say i'm cool in ur speech ill give u .5 more speaker pts

other things

- paraphrasing is ok just dont misrepresent ev

- don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. i'll automatically drop u

- tech>truth

- pls have ev ready, if u take more than 2 mins to find ur card ill tell u guys to move on

- add me to the email chain keeshaomin@gmail.com

- i LOVE DAs pls read them ur speaks will soar

- don't be sticky

- cheating is not okay u'll lose immediately (stealing prep, outside help, etc.)

- i trust ya'll to time ur own prep

Hello!

My name is Samuel Kligman, and I am a freshman at Princeton University. I debated for three years in the West Texas NSDA Circuit. I have broken, made finals, and placed at various UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments in both Congress and Public Forum. While I will list my paradigm below, please note that I prioritize creating a safe and equitable space for debate. Essentially, just treat each other nicely and with respect.

Email: samuelkligman@gmail.com

LD:

If you spread, make sure I can understand you. If I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you.

Congress:

1) New Arguments-Every piece of legislation is inherently multifaceted with wide-ranging effects. As legislators, it is your duty to your constituents to thoroughly examine every legislation piece. Thus, while I recognize the value and need for an extensive evaluation of certain points of contention during the debate, please do not rehash the same argument. Instead, you should look at new ways to attack an argument and strive to induce an "aha" moment from a (hypothetical) undecided legislator. Moreover, new arguments are also entirely welcome as long as you leave enough time for clash or weave clash into your new argument. I weigh this in an equivalent manner to clash.

TLDR: New arguments are always a good idea, and are even better when used to clash.

2) Clash-Congress is not a speech event, but rather a pure form of debate. In every speech, you should reference other representatives' speeches and deconstruct their arguments. Please devote substantial time to this, and try to fit it into every point of contention.

TLDR: Spend lots of time clashing.

3)Evidence- The more sources, the better. At a minimum, you should have two sources per contention. Moreover, I value reputable and nonpartisan sources the most (Brookings, Urban, .edu, etc....) over slightly biased sources (CATO, Vox, etc...). Basically, just mix it up a bit! Also, use your best judgment on whether a source is outdated or not for I will always prefer newer sources over older ones.

TLDR: Have evidence that is plentiful, diverse, and timely.

4) Questioning- Be active! Never pass on an opportunity to ask a question to the opposing side. That being said, do not repeat a question already brought up or ask a soft question purely for the sake of solidifying your speech. Your questions should be detailed, researched, and thought-provoking. When answering questions, be confident, concise, and answer only what is asked. I will keep a tally of all the questions you ask that I deemed substantial and contributed positively to the round. I will refer to this as a tie-breaker when ranking similar debaters.

TLDR: Do not rehash questions or ask easy questions to solidify your speech. Ask lots of strong questions as much as possible.

5) Structure- Make sure your speech flows from one argument to the next in a clear and fluid manner. Basically, ensure each point does not awkwardly flow into the next. I should always know what point of contention you are on.

6) Introductions- I love smart, eloquent, and concise introductions that match the tone of your overall speech. Your intro should be at most 30 seconds long (at most). In general, I do not like overly humorous introductions as most pieces of legislation have permanent and severe consequences. I love clever introductions that draw upon real-life examples and potential situations that can arise from a piece of legislation with a mix of ethos, pathos, and logos. However, a simple introduction with a quote or statistic that is delivered passionately is perfectly fine to me as well Overall, a bad intro can hurt a good speech, but a beautiful intro cannot save a bad speech. I weigh accordingly.

TLDR: Short, clever, and/or passionate intros are the best. Avoid overt humor in general. I weigh intros fairly low.

7) Presentation-To create an equitable space for debate, I do not have too many presentational preferences. I just ask that you speak up, vary your intonation, try not to pace, and have good eye contact. Feel free to physically block or not. Unless your presentation is truly poor and actively detracts from your speech, I do not consider it as much as other factors when ranking and scoring.

TLDR: As long as your presentation does not interfere with your communication, you're good.

8) PO-I will rank a PO in the top 3 if they 1) recognize 12 speeches at least per hour 2) avoid substantial parliamentary errors and 3) keep order.

PF:

•Please weigh throughout the round and not just in summary.

•I flow and will drop arguments not brought up consistently.

•I'm fine with speed, but please do not spread.

•Use crossfire constructively and not as a means to be rude to your opponent.

•I will disregard new arguments brought up in summary and final focus.

•I really like metaphors and figurative language, especially in final focus.

•If one side presents a framework, I will judge the round through the lens of that framework unless properly refuted. If both sides present a framework, I will judge the rounds through the lens of the superior framework.

My email: ashutosh.komali@gmail.com, add me to any speech or card doc.

A bit about me, I am a freshman in college (Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech.) and have competed in many events consistently over 4 years, mainly in Public Forum debate where I was the AK PF captain. Other events I did were Congressional Debate, Big Questions and World Schools Debate for Ardrey Kell High School/Carolina West District. Hint: World Schools is my favorite event and is the best event, so even though I am an experienced judge, a well warranted "lay" debate is the best strategy for me rather than devoting the round to a fast flow debate

Please feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts.

TLDR; I hate prog, treat me like a shitty lay judge even if I can evaluate your argumentation, don’t make me to extra work to figure out who won, pls have fun.

Most importantly, I know how stressful a debate round can get, I know the anxiety that debaters get before round. I can't really do anything about this, but just know that I want you to just have fun, that's what debate should be, and I'll try my best to make the environment lighthearted and fun. There is nothing better than a cohesive debate community and becoming friends with people you see consistently at tournaments is just top tier, so while you should do your best and take things seriously, don't be so tough on yourself. This is an extremely difficult activity, and while I am your judge, I'm not going to "judge" you based on your debate abilities, I will just do my best to help you improve upon yourself. Anyone who knows me in this activity knows that what I valued most in debate was trying to help others.

General PF Stuff:

Tech>Truth in almost any circumstance as long as it's not offensive or absolutely absurd (impacting out to 1 trillion humans)

Prog Debate: While everything I say below is true, I am a substance judge and will always prefer a very lay and trad round. I don't really care how you feel about this, but I hate progressive rounds, and though I won't drop you for it, I'm unlikely to prefer the team that reads it, especially if it is being spread. Reading theory against novices is lame and don't do it to teams just looking for good experience in a tournament. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t read it on teams that are being absurdly exclusionary, but don’t read prog just to read prog.

Theory/T: I'm not the most experienced with it but I get the gist of it. Theory doesn't have to be answered in 2nd case if they are trying to keep the round trad. You must ask your opponents if they are okay with theory, just a general question as theory debaters won't yet know what potential abuse is made in the round, the only exception to run theory if opponents disagree is if a TW is necessary.

Kritik/K's: Fine, not my expertise but if you explain it to me like I was born yesterday, then it will be fine. Try to keep it in the realm of topical K's but do as you will.

Strike me if you don't like my policy about progressive args.

Speaker Points: I won't go below 28, unless you are being excessively aggressive and/or rude or say anything offensive or discriminatory.

Don't read 30 speaks theory, please don't skew the round for this, you have a better chance of 30 speaks without this.

These all apply only to the speaker who did them:

• Make an avatar(both avatar franchises included) reference: +0.5
• Make a Stranger Things reference: +1

Speech docs: I hope this is obvious from what I just said, but don't try to spread, especially if you mess up your speaking a lot, but if you do spread, send speech doc.

I generally will not ask for a speech doc because I am fairly fine with flowing unless you spread very fast, which I considered being 250 or 260+ wpm.

Frameworks: I default cost-benefit analysis/utilitarianism, but you can have your own FW. Provide warranting for why this is the FW of the round tho, or else I will think it is very weak. Second case can always have a counter FW or just respond in rebuttal.

Mavericks: Everything the same except I'll give mav's 5 minutes of prep

Speech Analysis:

Case: Have clear warranting, it can be obscure or unique, but it should make sense. Case comprising of cut cards is recommended for your own usefulness, I am fine with anything paraphrased, but if a card is miscut or paraphrased incorrectly, I will drop it from my flow. Note: this can only happen if opponents call cards and address cards and I follow up with the card.

1st Rebuttal: Pre-emptive frontlines are nice, you should know what your job is, go top down on their case and respond to it to the best of your ability, addressing cross questions can help as well.

2nd Rebuttal: Make sure you frontline here, I won't evaluate it in second summary, feels abusive to me. Respond to their case obviously.

Don't read cards only, make analytical responses, these often have the best warranting throughout the round so they are useful, and when reading any carded response, make implications to why they clash with your opponents claims. Don't say something then not tell me why it it important.

Weighing is always welcome here.

1st Summary: Make sure you frontline your case well, only place for you to frontline. If you want me to evaluate something in my decision, you need to include it here. I advise you to collapse on your case, don't need to if opponents didn't do very well on responding. Make sure you weigh here.

2nd Summary: Again, no new frontlining that wasn't in rebuttal. Should address first summary. Nothing really different from first summary.

NO NEW RESPONSES, I get annoyed by this. This should be obvious, but no new arguments, I won't evaluate them.

If new arguments are made in summary and you respond to them just to be on the safe side then that's fine but I generally won't encourage it as I drop new args(unless its frontlining in first summary) and a time suck.

1st Final Focus: I agree that this is some disadvantage since you don't get the last word, but this is a big reason you should pre-emptively respond to their 2nd FF. Again extend things you want me to evaluate. Weigh.

2nd FF: Take advantage of this, you have the last word in the round. Don't do anything unfair, but if the round went very clash(AKA went to backlining and beyond), new analysis of the arguments are welcome here, this goes for first FF too. Weigh.

Your Final Focus should practically write the RFD for me, even if you are losing hard, don't give up and make a convincing final statement as to why you should win.

WEIGHING: To me, weighing and impact calc is very important, as even if you concede to all of your opponents links, you can still win off of weighing impacts with a clear link into them with your arguments. Magnitude is often the default in rounds, but differentiate your weighing from your opponents by using other weighing mechanisms too. Meta-weighing is often not included in many rounds I watch but it is a great tool, helps me in my decision and is always welcome.

Although it is convenient for the debaters, I don't believe in sticky defense, just don't do it. Extend.

I may call for cards once the round is over for me to clear up any suspicious evidence or cards that are challenged during the round.

Finally and probably most important, please make an implication of any argument that you extend in the back half of the round that has clash on both sides(hopefully a lot of them exist) because without implications I can't easily tell who wins an argument if they don't interact with the other side.

Debate is great have fun and dont get mad - its never that deep

tldr: tech > truth, tabula rasa (as much as it can get), win the weighing = win the round

add me to chain - deanmrkva@gmail.com

Signpost - Warrants - Collapse - Weigh

For MSTOC

If you dont understand what this paradigm says, take a deep breath and just debate as best as you can. MS Debate is where you learn the fundamentals, feel free to ask me any questions about anything, but most importantly have fun.

General

1. I'm good with speed - In the front-half of the round ~300 wpm with a doc is the max that I'm confident to flow and keep track of - going higher, especially without a doc risks losing me on the flow. In the back-half go slow, going fast usually means I can't keep track of everything going on in every part of the flow, going slow ensures I keep track.
2. Dont feel the need to go fast - Just because i'm a tech judge, don't just go fast thinking I will pick you up. I prefer slower paced debates with good clash and argumentation over blippy speed rounds. Put simply speed ≠ skill
3. I will Disclose - I will disclose and give RFD every single one of my rounds unless the tournament prohibits it. Post-rounding is educational, so do it.

How I evaluate

1. Weighing first, whoever is winning the link comparison (i.e. prereqs, link-ins, etc.) is usually ahead. I prefer having 1 solid link weighing mech over 10 spammy impact-weighing mechs. Make it comparative, so I can determine the highest layer of offense.
2. The cleanest offense, whichever args have the most weighing comes first but after that, I look at defense on different args. If there is no weighing on either side, the offense with the least amount of defense on it is winning.

Substance

1. Warrants are everything - I won't vote on an argument even if it is 100% conceded if the warrants aren't explained and extended, this goes with turns, DAs, and responses as well.
2. Signpost Well - Good signposting means I understand what arguments and points you are making more clearly, always do it.
3. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline offense - I think it is more strategic to frontline all your offense in 2nd rebuttal, but it isn't necessary. You HAVE to frontline the offense you will go for in the back-half, I won't evaluate any new responses/front lines in the back-half.
4. FF is a summary mirror - Everything that is said in FF must've been in summary as well, this means I won't evaluate any new weighing or implications in FF because of the time skew.
5. Clarify the weighing - All weighing should be comparative and not just blips - Frontline your weighing and respond to theirs, not doing this leaves me to intervene to see which is the most important since no one else mentioned it in the round. USE URGENCY TO BREAK THE CLASH, having 2 competing link comparison mechanisms is always hard to evaluate, break the clash with urgency to see which is more important.

Speaks

Ill start speaks around 28, but here are some things u can do for high speaks -

Put a lyric to a good song in the tags of cards that is actually relevant - HAS to be good, i.e. no Taylor Swift

In cross get your opps with some sort of joke, dont be offensive tho

Dont call me judge, just say dean

Send all cards for speeches

Use carded weighing

Have some cool terminal defense in case or some unique round strats

Have a lay round, I won't flow so it's true lay evaluation - just let me know beforehand

Prog Debate

1. Dont run Ks - I'm not experienced enough in PF K debate to evaluate it correctly, if you want to run a K don't expect a good evaluation.
2. Theory - I haven't had too much experience with Theory debate so I don't suggest running it. If there is an actual violation feel free to run theory, but my evaluation wont be perfect.
3. Framing - I think good framing debates are really interesting feel free to run it, but explain your framing well and implicate it as much as you can.

Extra Stuff

Here are some debaters that I like and agree with

Joseph Nahas

Sully Mrkva

Ishan Dubey

“don’t hate the player, hate the game” - ICE-T

tl;dr → flow????

sreekar.nagul@gmail.com and trinitypreppfdocs@gmail.com, put me on the chain plz and label the chain with the round, both teams and which side they are on

i did pf for trinity prep for 3 years on the nat circuit and now i go to berkeley. i was pretty mid at debate but i qualled to the toc my senior year so there is that. i won this tourney called peach state and did ight at some other nat circuits. if there is one thing you need to know about my paradigm, it's this. debate is a game, play to win

I hate intervention, I will do anything to avoid doing it unless told otherwise.

tech>everything, if it's warranted and has an impact, it can pick up my ballot. imo tho true arguments are easier to weigh and win

if you wanna spread send a doc, but I would highly prefer if I could understand what you are saying. if you spread past rebuttal, I will call clear twice and if I still can’t understand you I’m gonna stop flowing. i am notoriously not that good with speed but i will try my best. don't share google docs, send a pdf or a word doc, non-negotiable. all in all, speak fast but never sacrifice clarity for it. if I can't catch what you are saying, then it is not on my flow.

collapse by final, its strategic and boosts speaks

signpost, it will boost your speaks and is like essential to me

rebuttals responsive to actual warrants will be rewarded with speaks

frontline everything you wanna go for in 2nd rebuttal and any external offense from 1st ref(i.e. turns and disad's). if its conceded in 2nd ref, its conceded the same way something not frontlined in 1st summ would be conceded, aka terminal concession

conceded defense is sticky, but bar that defense is not sticky and turns have to be extended, implicated, and most importantly weighed in either team’s summary if you are going for them. turns don't have to be weighed when they are made.

the argument that wins the weighing is what I will evaluate first, please give me a reason to prefer your weighing over your opponents (i.e. better link in to the chosen weighing mechanism, meta weighing, short-circuit, link-in, or best of all prereq). if there is no comparative weighing done, I default to strength of link / magnitude > time frame > probability.

you must explicitly extend any offense (with warrants) you want to go for in summary and ff, no new things in final and anything you say here has to be in summary (1st ff can respond to 2nd summ weighing, and 2nd ff can respond to 1st ff weighing tho)

cross is not binding, but if they make a concession, then bring it up in the next speech and keep extending it for it to matter, we can skip GCX for an extra minute of prep (instead of 3 min total for both teams it would be 4 min, and if the tourney starts with 4 min prep it would be 5 min)

idk how to evaluate cp’s and tricks so you prolly shouldn't run them (nsda rules is prolly terminal d), but things like fem and neocol framework I can (and I think are strategic). bringing up a new fw in summary is prolly abusive

pull up evidence fast, if not the opponents can have unlimited prep until you send. speech docs prolly resolve this. if you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so explicitly and frequently by the end of the round. i think calling for cards is super interventionist because i think the debaters are the ones that should resolve clash not me. if your opps lie about ev but you never call them out, i wont intervene and/or dock them.

THEORY

if you run theory, use a shell, I default to competing interps and no RVI’s. yes, I think paraphrasing is bad, round reports are good, and disclosure is good. no, I won't hack for any unless you win the shell. the same extension stuff applies, but collapse. weigh the voters, if not, I will default safety > accessibility > resolvability > inclusivity > education > fairness. if no one is garnering offense on theory/unresolved clash on theory, then I will default substance, and if there is nothing on substance then I will presume.

I think friv theory is bad bc the short speech times in PF, however, I dislike intervening more than friv theory, so I will evaluate it, but I will err on the side of a good ‘friv theory bad’ shell or a reasonability claim.

for novices: if you choose to run theory and the other team clearly does not know what is going on, as long as you drop it and go for case debate I won't hit your speaks too hard, but if you prove that the other team is a capable opponent in your violation then I'm all for it.

for varsity: saying you don't know how to respond to the shell isn't enough, varsity debaters must know how to respond to varsity arguments (i.e. theory, kritiks, and other progressive arguments)

although I believe trigger warnings don't really do anything (see Association for Psychological Science and Harvard University), if an arg actually has triggering material that you have evidence to back then I am all for it. reading trigger warning theory as a way to not interact with arguments is a horrible practice that is super uneducational imo.

KRITIKS

I will never hack for a K and will evaluate it on the flow unless told otherwise. this doesn’t mean I won’t vote on a k, if it's won on the flow I will gladly vote for it but if it's not then I won’t. specific alts are great

for novices: idk if I should evaluate k’s in novice, but ig if you make a claim your opponent is extremely capable then maybe… I would err on the side of caution tho

EXTRAS

all in all, I think speaks are a matter of technical ability and strategy in the round, if you seem well versed in your arguments and make good decisions on the flow you will get good speaks. generally tho, ill just shamelessly steal what my coach said, “speaker points, 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. in short, content above style”

postround me as hard as you want, it's definitely educational, good for the activity, and incentivizes me to intervene as less as possible

I will presume neg if there is no offense, it is the aff’s job to prove to me they are better than the status quo. if it is a benefits vs. harms res, ill intervene ig or look for any semblance of offense smh.

if an argument is conceded, i will consider it true. my threshold for new responses/cross-apps/implications on conceded arguments is pretty low, but there is no harm in actually responding anyways. this being said, i know pf is structurally skewed towards to the second speaking team, but I will try my best to protect the first final.

RANDOM

if you make a crazy double entendre bar in any of your speeches your speaks gonna go crazy high.

all in all, I agree with like almost every flow judge, so just don't do anything stupid, abusive, or discriminative otherwise you will get L20's and as cliche as it is, hAVe fUn in whatever way you think fun is

if you didn’t understand any of this, I wholeheartedly agree with Jake Kaminski’s paradigm, there is nothing on there I don't fully agree with so read it if you want more info. my other favorite paradigms are John Nahas and Anish Iyyavoo. if you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask.

for novices: If this is your 1st or 2nd tournament, you will do great! Focus on responding to all of your opponents arguments, comparing why your arguments are better, and explaining all of the parts of your arguments very clearly in every speech. Most of all, have confidence, you are going up against first year debaters only, you can win if you believe you can win. "We All Put Our Pants On the Same Way"

props if you got this far in my paradigm, I used to stalk paradigms all day to learn how judges would think so I could tweak my game, lemme know and I’ll boost your speaks

AddjpotooleDB@gmail.comfor docs/chains

Did 4 years of PF at Newsome (‘23)

If you don’t know some of the terms I use in the paradigm, don’t be afraid to ask

If both teams agree, you can change anything in my paradigm for the round (This includes lay vs flow, tech vs truth, weighing preferences, speaker points, how I evaluate prog, and any other nuances in debate). Just let me know before round starts

PF

I’m going to default to being flow because thats the type of round I would want to judge. Refer to the section above if you want me to be lay or tech.

Flow Paradigm

As a flow judge I’m going to be voting off of the line by line, but won’t give technical losses like not extending all Defense is sticky. Collapse please. Bring up your voters in both summary and final.

Weigh & Meta Weigh. I firmly believe that meta weighing is the easiest way to the ballot, and quite often the team that gives the best meta-weighing will win. Emphasize this heavily in FF. I default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity

Mavericks get 6 mins prep

Speaker Points: I'll make the round 29-28 in most cases. If I feel the round is messy it will be 28-27, super close will be 30-29, and a mismatch 30-28. Say “Time will start on my second word” to let me know you’ve read all of this so far (You’ll get a boost in speaks). Also + speaks if you disclose on the wiki.

I won’t flow cross but I’ll pay attention to what is said. If the round is an absolute toss up to me I will vote based on who I thought looked stronger in cross. Treat cross more for the performance aspect of debate rather than the argumentation. If you feel you won a point in cross, tell me in a speech.

Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. I will not flow anything said over time, so keep this in mind

Everything under this is specifically if teams decide they want me as a tech judge

Speeches

2nd Rebuttal should always frontline & I won’t accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. This threshold is low, though- as long as you can briefly mention your response you can expand upon it in

Summary Stuff: Its ok with me if you don’t want to read out all if the cards word for word you use in case that you want to extend. Just say “Extend our C2, specifically Depetries 21 and Velasco 13.” I only prefer this for the sake of spending more time on the clash of responses rather than just restating them. I personally don’t require weighing in summary, but it wouldn’t hurt you to do so. Weighing in 1st summary should be responded to in 2nd summary. Any arg not extended in summary can’t be used in FF.

FF I expect the same from both teams, simply tell me why you won and they lost. Heavily lean into weighing. If no meta weighing happens, I'll default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity. As long as you give even a little meta weighing I’ll buy into it until the other team responds.

Ask your opponents before you spread. I can personally handle 300ish wpm but if you are going 250+ send a doc.

Prog Stuff

Kritiks: You might need to explain them to me like I am 5 depending on the complexity. I’ll be able to follow the more common stuff like cap and neocol, but anything beyond that I likely won’t know much about. As long as you explain the literature clearly you should be ok with me.

Theory: I'm familiar with how to evaluate it. If there is a legitimate violation, read it the speech after the violation has occured. I default to competing interps but can be told otherwise. Also, don’t read anything on round reports.

LARP/Trix: Don't know anything about it, try it if you want but I have 0 experience

MOST IMPORTANT PART: If you run some funny case/theory, you will likely lose the round, but will receive 30 speaks, I will ask you to sign my flow, and you will be entered in the paradigm Hall of Fame.

Hall of Fame

x

x

x

x

x

I spent the last four years studying, judging, and teaching PF, LD, and Congressional debate. I offer the ideal perspective of a judge. I weigh each and every argument, I understand the conceptual details of debate, and I have developed such an interest for debate that I stay attentive through the enduring rounds. 

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 parent

This is my 3rd year judging LD, and I have a little experience judging PF. If I get you in a PF round please explain any jargon, I won't have any topic knowledge

Email: rich785d@gmail.com

Add me to the chain

Quick Prefs

1 - trad, low theory

2 - T, LARP

3 - Phil

4 - Ks

s - high theory, Pomo Ks, trix, identity Ks, friv theory

Defaults

• Presumption negates, Permissibility affirms
• Fairness > education
• No RVIs, Competing interps, drop the argument
• Comparative Worlds
• Condo bad

Thoughts

• Tech > truth, but I probably won't vote on anything absurd and my threshold for response is lower the worse an argument is
• Need claim, warrant, impact for everything you read
• Voters at the end of last two speeches
• Condo's probably bad so honestly just read a condo bad shell and I'm probably likely to vote on it
• I'm probably pretty likely to vote on T as long as its articulated well
• Don't read friv theory pls, if you have to ask yourself whether a shell is friv just don't read it
• If you plan on reading dense phil positions please please please explain everything in it extremely well
• I listen to cross but I won't flow, if anything it'll affect your speaks a little but don't worry too much about it
• Signpost everything, it's just good
• I'm fine with spreading it won't affect speaks or anything, but also send the doc and don't expect me to listen

Ks

• I won't understand anything Pomo or complex like Baudrillard or Psycho
• If you wanna read Ks just make it really simple for me and maybe overexplain, I'd probably be fine with setcol, cap, or security but anything else is kinda pushing it tbh

Theory

• I'm fine with most low theory and shells like Espec, Disclo, rlly anything as long as the interp is good
• I won't understand high theory, please don't try to explain it
• No friv

LARP

• Util trutil
• Extinction o/w
• CPs are usually pretty fun if they're well articulated
• Generic DAs are usually good, but unique is cool too

Phil

• Honestly, just overexplain your position and it'll be fine
• If you can't explain it don't read it because I won't get it either

Speaks

25 - 26: You said something offensive

26.1 - 27: Significantly below average, maybe you didn't cwi anything

27.1 - 28: Probably below average, there's definitely some stuff you need to change

28.1 - 29: Average - good, you could break

29.1 - 29.9: Should definitely break, probably one of the best I've seen

30: I've only given one 30 but honestly I'm probably more likely to give one now that I'm more experienced. Probably best I've ever seen debate and your strategic decisions and such were pretty much perfect

Senior at Edina.

I learned debate primarily from Alec Boulton, Charlie Jackson, and people I've prepped with (Ishan Dubey, Ilan Ben-Avi, Sabrina Huang, Will Pirone, Sully Mrkva). I'll judge relatively similarly to how they do with a few changes that are bolded in my paradigm.

I'm pretty facially expressive while I judge, reading into expressions is probably a good idea.

Judge instruction is very, very helpful and underutilized. Tell me how to evaluate the round: ballot directive language, thresholds I should establish, when and/or whether I should grant new arguments, if I should err one side or another, gut-checks when appropriate, how I filter what is about to be said, etc.

I will presume for the team that annoys me less

i won't flow off of a doc, speed annoys me

LARP

tech>truth

collapse

uniqueness>>>>>link

extensions just have to exist. a singular run-on sentence explaining uq/link/impact is sufficient so long as it is frontlined. I'm especially lenient on extensions toward conceded arguments.

i expect all docs with evidence to be sent in an email chain before the speech. i don't want to read your evidence, nor do I want to steal it, nor will I flow off of a doc, but evidence exchange without docs is so unnecessary and takes so long. debaters who meet this expectation are much more likely to receive the ballot.

Theory

speech times are set, other than that you can do whatever you want.

no need to extend until summary. short extensions are sufficient.

obnoxiousness is a voter.

K

commit to the bit

make sure you understand what you are saying. it's obvious when you are just reading off backfiles or if one partner knows the lit but the other doesn't.

while I hope to remain impartial as a judge, discriminatory literature/behavior is something that I will actively discourage with speaker points and ballots, regardless of in-round argumentation

tricks

if you want to ig

cross

be nice

justifiable anger is alright

if you are asked a yes or no question, give a yes or no answer

i am so willing to vote on cross behavior.

misc

competitors can post-round as much as they want (i refuse to be post-rounded by coaches)

pf rounds should be open for specs -- i'm not letting anyone kick them out

speaks

if you want good speaks, make sure the round happens quickly and efficiently

everything else in this section was removed under new paradigm approval rules :(

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Fox Chapel '24

Email: adhi[dot]thirumala[at]gmail[dot]com

I have done every speaking position, gone for every type of argument, and debated on all kinds of circuits from the most lay to the most circuit.

It is better to win dishonestly than lose with honor. I have little to no ideological preferences; above all, teams ought to make decisions that maximize their chances of winning.

Sending PDFs caps your points at a 15; every program that you use to send speech docs can export a word document as easily as a PDF.

I debated on the national circuit for Lambert back in the day (you should look me up to boost my ego) and am currently a student at Upenn.

Don't be rude or a bad person.

He/Him

put me on the email chain, please.

georgetian80@gmail.com

General

I strongly believe in Tech>Truth, but that does not mean doing sloppy debates with way too much on the flow. By the end of my flow I want a concise and clear way to vote.

I will probably have no idea what the topic is about, so please make everything easy to understand.

Everything extended must have a warrant.

Please clash and resolve said clash. I want to intervene as little as possible. Also, please weigh it'll make voting a lot easier.

I'm okay with speed but send a speech doc. (I have not debated for a while, I may be rusty so a speech doc will help no matter what)

DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY IE if you don't extend a piece of defense even if your opponents don't frontline it I will not take it into account. You must extend everything you want me to write down. This is a hill I will die on.

Speech Specifics

Second rebuttal should frontline.

No new weighing in final focus unless it's responsive.

you should probably respond to frameworks in the speech directly after even if it's just for a few seconds.

Please time cross on your own. I don't really pay attention to cross either so use it as an opportunity to gain information not win the round.

Prog

I'm ok with theory (very rusty) especially, disclosure, open-source, paraphrasing, and some friv theory.

Theory must be in shell format

Please weigh in theory debates.

I have little experience with K lit but I will vote off of it if you warrant it well and explain everything. I am by no means experienced with kritiks and not be the best judge to read them with.

trix ^same as K

Since most of my debate career was online, I'm still super used to email chains as evidence sharing, and I think this should be a norm even in in-person debates.

email chain (I will probably not open speech docs unless there is an evidence dispute): njvanlandschoot@gmail.com

First and foremost, I am a flow judge. This means that I will award almost any dropped argument. Tech over truth as long as the argument is at least theoretically plausible, however unlikely it may seem.

Any model of debate is fine, and I will vote on any type of argument, including theory or ROTB that contradicts this.

I care more about substance than presentation. For PF I may take presentation into account if there is a major difference between the two teams, but in general you do not need to worry about this with me.

I will not factor the qualifications of a card into my decision unless told to do so. That being said, a good analytic is still better than a bad, or even worse, irrelevant card.

In reality, I do not care about disclosure, and I believe that prep time is enough. That being said, if someone reads a good argument on disclosure, I will still vote on it.

In CX I am fine with speed.

Don’t steal prep on purpose (I also do not intervene in almost any situation, so still be sure to call out your opponent).

I will disclose if I am allowed to.

Southlake Carroll '24

Add me to the email chain: debatevy@gmail.com

If you have any questions always feel free to reach out ^

TL;DR

Tech > Truth. Go as fast as you want, weigh/warrant well, and have fun. Progressive argumentation is good. Don't be awkward, mean, or problematic.

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 wpm, but make sure you send docs before the speech. Slower = verbatim, Faster = paraphrasing when it comes to my flow, aim for the former.

I'll probably always have done some research on the topic, but still explain jargon.

DEBATE IS A GAME

I will vote for any argument as long as it's warranted and unproblematic. DAs, impact turns, squirelly contentions - I'm good with them all.

Prefs —

LARP - 1

Theory - 1

Kritik - 2

High Theory - 3

Counterplans - 3

Non-T Kritik - 4

Performance - 4

—— GENERAL ——

Signposting is crucial, especially for messier rounds. Judge instruction is also super helpful and highly valued (how to evaluate the round, when/whether I should grant new arguments, if I should gut-check or err one way or another, etc).

I definitely won't flow and might not listen to cross, if you want me to remember something bring it up in speech. Also skip GCX pls pls pls.

Resolve clashing link-ins/pre-reqs/short circuits - otherwise I'll most likely have to intervene to resolve it & I'll be sad.

Send full docs before all speeches where new evidence is read, and send marked ones afterwards, especially if you're going fast.

Absent warrants, I'll always presume first due to recency skew, but you can change that with warrants. No new presumption warrants in final focus though, make sure they're in summary.

Please label email chains so they're easy to organize. Ex. "Bronx Semis - Southlake Carroll RY (Aff 2nd) vs. JR Masterman AC (Neg 1st)"

—— PROGRESSIVE ——

A — THEORY

I really like good theory debates. Disclosing open-source with round reports is good, but I will vote for anything as long as its won. I won't let my biases affect how I eval theory (exception incoming...), so respond however you want. (I will err to OS in full text v. os debates though...)

I default to competing interps and no RVIs, but that can change. Reasonability is persuasive the more frivolous the shell is.

Shoe and Team Sweater theory is friv, hyper-specific disclosure shells and must not send Google docs are not.

For reference, here's a list of shells I've ran/hit/understand: disclosure, paraphrase, round reports, topicality, open-source, full text, bracketing, spec method/actor/rvis/rotb, womenx, must send speech docs, must not send google docs, post/pre-fiat spec, vague alts bad.

B — KRITIKS

I'm game if you want to run a topical K and you do it well.

I'm most familiar with the following: cap, fem ir, securitization, set col, and orientalism. I prob won't understand anything hyper-unique in this realm; if it's not in the above list or isn't a variation of it, be cautious of reading it or overexplain.

Reject alts and discourse alts are fake, but I will vote on them if won. On that note, I'm pretty flexible with extratopical alternative/method strategies, which I think is needed for a well-executed K in PF. (pls do that; ontological revisionism > reject capitalism)

You have to win your links to access pre-fiat offense. I will never vote for arguments precluding your opponents from linking in or "we said it first".

Theory uplayers the K but I can be convinced otherwise.

C — FRAMING

I default to util and will always evaluate basic framing (think Fem, SV, etc). Anything more complex is out of my realm, but I'll listen to anything.

D — COUNTERPLANS

I've never ran a counterplan but I will evaluate them with a kinda-low theshold for responses. I'm curious as to if things like process CPs are viable in PF, and am yet to find out; I think they could be cool.

Probably won't work on "on balance" resolutions, but if it's a fiated policy topic, go for it I guess.

E — TRICKS

I won't evaluate anything I don't understand and my knowledge on these falls off a cliff once you go past "predictions fail" to "dogmatism paradox".

—— EXTRA ——

SPEAKS:

I'm pretty generous with speaks; I'll almost always give atleast a 28.5 as long as you don't do anything offensive.

Make the round both enjoyable & quick, run an innovative strat, and have airtight practices (os disclosure + rr, full card docs before every speech) for a 30.

I try to be a good judge, but if you run random Ks on me, i might miss the core of the debate.

i would strongly prefer if you called me "Your honor" (on in panel, say panel)

tell me your fav rap song, and I'll give bonus speaks based on that (to make sure that you read this)

Real paradigm below \/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Novice LD paradigm

It's a learning experience guys, I was in your shoes, I sucked too so

Y'all can ask me questions if your stuck at any time and I'll help you out

I emphasize fw a lot, but will vote off of impacts.

Do impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude)

If you run plan affs, I'll be mad and dock speaks, but go ahead lol

Prefer disclosure with me, do whatever you'd enjoy

If you'll be running anything prog (or what upperclassmen wrote for you, read the whole paradigm please)

LD Paradigm

First, I'm a more progressive judge, so I'm fine with almost anything.

I don't have a preference on disclosure, but if y'all don't disclose, don't spread or run high phil.

Spread all u want, but send me the docs. If you spread badly I'll dock speaks. Nobody likes incomprehensible spreading, T-T

Drown your speech in theory shells for all I care. Please make sure I understand them though cuz theory i don't understand makes me cry T-T

TIP: Sound like your opponent committed a war crime, and I'm more likely to buy it than just reading the shell in a monotone voice.

I do prefer empirical evidence over philosophy unless it's something like Baudrillard where you target the mindset.

It is advantageous to weigh under your opponent’s framing mechanism in addition to telling me why yours is better.

You can be as abusive as you want in arguments and observations. Fair warning, you might hit a few theory shells. I don't like plan affs, and will lower speaks, but you can run it.

No new args in the 2nr/2ar, please (common sense)

I will time, and when the timer goes off I’ll stop flowing so you talking longer than 10 seconds over serves no strategic purpose.

I am tech > truth and am a (mostly) tabula rasa judge

1. Theory

1.5 Trix (Read curry's paradox i love it ngl)

2. Larp and non-identity k

3. standard case

3.5 pomo phil

4. common Phil (kant, rawls, locke)

5. Identity arguments

Arguments I will not vote for (this list might get longer as time goes on)

-ableist/racist/sexist/transphobic/classist/violent arguments. To clarify, if I am judging a round where it comes down to a racist argument and a sexist argument, I will vote on presumption, not one of the two arguments.

If your opponent points out that your case defends or supports one of the above, you need to win that issue, or else I will not vote for that.

Please signpost along the way to make it easier.

Speaks

I think the method of giving speaks based on how far I'll think you'll go in the tourney is pretty dumb - however, higher speaks probably mean you're more likely to get to Elim rounds. Anyway, this is how I view speaks:

27: It was really bad/I couldn't understand you

28: It was ok/could be a lot better

29: It was decent/not bad/a little improvement but not terrible

30: Pretty good/good clash/impact calc

I don't really care enough to give like .1 speaks it will either be a whole number or end in 0.5 - i.e. like 29 or 29.5, but not 29.2 or 28.8. (If the debate was good, but I was triggered, I will give .9 purely to spite)

Ways to get free speaks (not free ballots)

1. Make a video game reference or do something funny and I'll bump your speaks. Or make jokes, idrc. Meme cases might probably not get a ballot from me (it sometimes has though), but depending on the case, probably a 29.5 or 30. If you run a spiritualism meme case, I will give you an automatic 30.

If you want me to clarify something about this paradigm please ask.

Credit to Zachary Li and Graham Johnstone for parts of the paradigm

Good luck, and have fun! (and win)

PF Paradigm

I think Hanming Sun summarizes all of my best points here when he says "i am a lay judge. speak slow."

Just a few things, extend in 3rd, really write my ballot on the 4th for me, and if ur a 2, bonus points if you hit every single part of their case.

Policy Paradigm

Signpost, if you don't know what it is, good luck my dude

Do some weighing, tell me why you win

If you don't know who Phoenix Pittman is and if he didn't get cancelled yet, ballot paint for me (write my ballot)

Honestly, policy sucks so just make the round fun and everyone will get good speaks ig, idrc

Try not to curse out your opponents ig, it's policy and i'd curse too

If you run a callout aff, ill give you max speaks

Spread lol i love spreading

NO MERCY

Tech

Vandy '27

I don't want to write a lot, I did silver TOC twice and know debate pretty well.

My brother won Yale this year :D

text me: 706-392-6665 for any questions

thanks

TJ JZ - 2023

Debated at Thomas Jefferson Sci & Tech for 4 years

Email Chain or Google Doc for evidence sharing would be appreciated: edwardbzhang@gmail.com

Tech >> Truth

PF

TJ Intramural Edit: I have noexperience with this topic so it would be good to treat me as a flay and explainstuff. Don't expect that I know the stock args and what you are talking about this topic.

Defense isn't sticky extend in all speeches

Most importantly: Don't be confusing. If I don't know what you're talking about, then I probably have no idea how to vote for that particular argument. This probably goes without saying.

-2nd summary needs to frontline

-Do weighing by summary

- Please extend

-New implications in final are fine

-I'm fine with theory

-Haven't read Ks other than Cap, so I might not be the best judge for that

-Don't read tricks.

- I'm fine with speed, but if you think you are on the verge of spreading then send a doc

Presumption

Presume neg? Presume aff? Presume first speaking team? I don't know.

If you truly feel that there is no offense left in the round, then I might buy arguments for why I should presume you.

In general, I think most judges don't like to presume teams unless explicitly told so, so if I think that there's no offense in the round and no team gives voters for why I should presume a specific way, I'll probably either vote off of risk of offence or whichever team has the best defensive arguments. Maybe even presentation too, idk. Just debate good.

Speaks

I'll generally give high speaks unless you do something that warrants me dropping them

You can improve your speaks by impressing me with smart strategy decisions like collapsing early, doing weighing, and meta-weighing

If you are reading my paradigm before a tournament and aren't sure what some things here mean, then feel free to send me an email and I can try to explain it