Tabroom.com

DebateHacks Season Opener

2022 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Arish Imtiaz Ali Hire

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 3:26 AM EDT

Please add me to the email chain:arish.ali.r.i@gmail.com

Speech drop is cooler tho

About me:
LV Hightower '24
POLICY DEBATER
Debated TFA, UIL, and NSDA policy circuit - I am very flow

Scroll down for other events

CX
shortcut:
1 bad - 5 good
Planless K aff - 0 - I will use your debate round as an hour-and a half-nap nap then vote neg
DA - 5(who doesn't run DAs)
CP - 5
K - 3 (I only understand a couple so explain)
Topicality - 5 (these are so underused, T debate is what got my partner and I to our first nats)
Theory - 4 (I love good theory debates that aren't pointless if the theory debate is pointless your speaks will reflect it)

Paradigm:

I see condo as an excuse for teams not doing speed drills (just get good) but I'll evaluate it.

Tech -x---------- Truth
Condo bad --------x--- Just get good
Limits -------x---- aff ground
T -x---------- K aff
Policy fw ---x-------- Any other fw

In constructive spread however fast you want(as long as its understandable) just make sure I have speech doc,if you are reading analytics tell me and slow down andmake it a noticeable change in your voice so I know what analytics

Most of my cx comes from Aman Chaudhary, Issac Chao, and Valentin Jimenez, they taught me debate so go read their paradigm to find out more about me(good pf and ld cuz he is basically my only basis for those)

I love a Value/Value Criterion debate, I think that this is what makes LD unique from other events. If you drop it, you will probably lose my ballot unless the opponent does as well. I also like impacts, and I prefer impacts that tie into your Value/VC (ex. Millions of lives being saved solved under the framework of utilitarianism.) I'll also look at other impacts, but I'll prioritize the impact if it ties back to the framework. I don't like spreading, but if you do, flash the case. As for progressive stuff, I'm still learning it, but I can understand it if it makes logical sense. I'll try to look at it from the proper viewpoint, but you should stray away from it as much as you can.

I like Yale's Speaker Points guide:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
26.0 to 26.9 - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

I will say one thing about PF: It is meant to be the common man's debate, accessible to the public (hence its name). I will NOT appreciate any theory, Ks, etc.(But if your convincing the inner CXer might vote for it).

For all debates- I understand all args and will due my best to evaluate wtv(tabula rasa)

Speaker Points

I tend to give high speaks. I start at a 29 and give you points if you do something good or entertaining and take points if you do something dumb or talk past time.

If you say "Yeet that argument out of the window" with a straight face in your speech I'll give you one extra speaker point.

Joseph Alonso Hire

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 5:04 AM EDT

add me to the email chain: jalonso25012@columbushs.com (email cases & rebuttal docs)

Columbus '25 . I competed in PF and, if it matters, here is my record.

tech>truth... but the winner is the team that wins the flow, and I'll vote instantly where I think the least. aka: go for simple places where you can access the ballot. messy rounds will default to the simplest place to vote throughout the whole mess.

0 - Novice States Update

EVIDENCE ETHICS IS SO IMPORTANT. I know you all are novices, but just try to come in with your evidence, saying what it does.

1 - General Debate Thoughts

Run:

PF: POLICY>>, Theory (friv too), some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework arguments
LD: Same in PF w/ Plans, Counter Plans, and Disads (LARP>)
Policy: ... just be slow

Don't Run:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs, TRICKS/hidden args.
Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well or else I won't understand.

Speed:

I WILL NOT flow off a doc. Spreading is fine but you MUST be clear and pronounce things well. Fast-talking =/= spreading. 240+ is too much

Misc

I will disclose unless there is a rule against it
Speaker points will NOT be disclosed. Everyone will get in the 28-30 range unless you are exclusionary or spread horrendously
Post-rounding/asking questions is fine. Make it educational; the round is over and the decision will not get changed. Just don't make it personal

2 - Specific Debate Stuff

- Pre-flow before.

- Please give/extend actual warrants. 30 blippy/paraphrased responses will get you nowhere. Give me an actual warrant that interacts with the argument you’re responding to.

- EXTEND CARD TAGS. I need to hear names and understand what they say.

- The second rebuttal needs to frontline all offense and defense for the arguments you are going for. Also, try to collapse in the second rebuttal; poorly attempting to frontline four contentions results in unnecessarily messy debates 99% of the time. If done correctly, this can definitely be good, tho.

- Everything in the final needs to be in summary — these speeches should practically mirror each other.

- Defense is not sticky.

- If there's zero offense, I'll presume neg unless told otherwise.

- Comparative weighing. Tell me why I should prefer your mechanisms over theirs.

- SV and extinction debates should start much earlier than the summary.

- Magnitude, time frame, probability > strength of link, clarity of impact, urgency, etc. Please do REAL weighing.

3 - "Progressive Debate"

Theory

EVIDENCE ETHICS IS A MUST. If the other team has an EV violation, run IVI, tell me where and what the violation is, and if your right, ill drop them. There is no excuse or coming back from an evidence violation.
Disclosure is good. I think OS is only good when it includes highlights and tags. If your full-texting and run disclosure, I'm more inclined to vote against you if the other team debated the shell well-enough on that point
Paraphrasing BAD. In my experience, 8/10 teams who paraphrase miscut their evidence, don't cut their evidence at all, or do a terrible job at cutting the evidence. it's very frustrating to have to deal with paraphrasing when a properly cut card and tag do the same think. aka: don't paraphrase
Friv is cool. debate is a game, and if friv wins you the game then run it. I'm more inclined to prefer other shells (para, disclo, etc) over friv as it inherently has more importance unless I'm told otherwise. It's funny and does win, but don't be too abusive and go 5 off on useless theory.
IVIs are real, but they rarely run properly. I think an IVI should have the same structure as theory, except its faster. I need to know why the abuse was bad, and why voting for you fixes it. without that, its hard for me to vote at all

I'm on the side of OVER-EXPLANATION. Treat me like a 6th grader when running a K.
I can understand the most basic of Ks (cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort) but I'm not the best judge to read Non-T.
I probably will vote for the T framework if debated equally with a Non-T K. I think being topical is probably good in terms of Ks, but I can be convinced otherwise.
If the K is non-T, make sure to explain it well and how it spills over or actually does something for the debate space,
Reject the AFF/NEG is NOT an alt. Please have an alt that does something for the round and space rather than give you a win.

Henry Anastasi Hire

Last changed on Tue February 27, 2024 at 3:39 PM EDT

I have learned the most in debate from asking judges dozens of questions about things I didn't understand in their paradigm. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

---------------------------------

Henry Anastasi (He/him/his)

Currently, a Senior at J. R. Masterman HS and have debated since freshman year under Masterman AW, AE, and most notably two different Masterman ACs

TLDR-I'm Tech I can judge you do what you want, I appreciate speech docs with cards greatly (not Google docs)

Immediate warning-any and all teams I will not vote for you if you´re hateful in any way. Any rhetoric that is Sexist, Racist, Homophobic, Transphobic, ect will lose you my ballot.

Debate is fun keep it fun. If you are rude to a team because you think you're better than them I will tank ur speaks even if I vote you up. You are not god, you are a teenager in a suit, I've seen too much of this recently.

General

-Go as fast as u want, I would like a speech doc over 1000 words, I think you will generally benefit from slower back half speeches

-tech>truth but that doesn't mean saying 'the sky is red' has as much legitimacy as 'the sky is blue'

-Defense isn't sticky it is 2023 (I lowkey don't even know what defense is sticky means)

-signposting good

-my partner and I do a lot of 'you didn't extend this properly' claims when we are losing rounds but I don't actually think it's that valuable. If your link into extinction isn't contested I don't need all the warranting behind it. TLDR, good extensions are valuable but I am not that stingy.

- Most rounds are won on the offensive layer, if you are torn on whether you should extend bad defense or read more weighing, read weighing.

-In that same realm, I will almost always vote for the argument that outweighs if some semblance of a link is won unless claims are read that I should prefer probability or prefer a less mitigated link

-Probability is a function of winning your case, and goes in tandem with defense

-Probability weighing is not an excuse to read new defense. It's so funny how far people can stretch probability analysis in some rounds. I think other weighing is preferable anyway because weighing should presume both arguments are won and probability is a facet of how won your link is.

-Early weighing is awesome and meta weighing is awesome. I think everyone is getting the point

-I think it's more interesting when things don't just impact out to extinction. I don't mind you doing that cuz sometimes it is just the best strategy (I read extinction constantly) , but it is so much more interesting to be able to do impact-weighing

Theory

-I like theory, Open-source disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and round reports are good. I think content warnings are important for safety. I won't hack for any of this issues, your fighting an uphill battle responding to them but obviously I'll vote on the flow

-Drop the debater and other paradigm issues aren't a given so you need to make those arguments, you absolutely can lose a round where you are ahead on the theory level but don't extend dtd

-The current state of RVIs is bad. 50% of people think RVI's are any argument that you can win the round off of when responding to theory and the other 50% actually know what they are ????. Say no offense garnered if that's what you mean, say no RVIs if that's what you mean.

-If your K is serious take yourself seriously, if it's not then don't pretend like it is. I don't care what a random dude from 100 years ago thinks I care what argument you extrapolate from them.

-i'm good w non-topical, set col, IR, securitization, and anything that's considered common in pf.

-real alt pls not "reject the aff" THATS LITERALLY WHAT THE NEG ALREADY IS

Speaks

-Pitch me a real reason u deserve 30 speaks and I'll give you 30. It can be personal, if there's someone you want to outspeak you gotta spill the drama

-1+ speaks if you don't have a coach, 25 speaks if you lie about it

-Speaks will generally be good dw abt it

Fun Stuff

-An authentic Philly-related line in a debate round will get you high speaks. This doesn't mean you have to be from Philly but it also doesn't mean Google Philadelphia and use the first thing you see.

-If both teams agree to read cases from a dif topic I will give everyone 30s regardless

Misc

-I'll presume for the squo unless other claims are made

Justin Black Hire

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 6:17 AM EDT

Harvard '27, Government and Computer Science

4 years PF @ Phillipsburg, 2 years WSD @ NJ

If you have any questions on what is on your ballot, advice, or are adding me to an email chain: jblack0898@gmail.com.

FOR VARSITY: Speech doc for case is required, if your rebuttal is card-heavy then rebuttal too.

Substance:

98.9% of the time, if you are evenly matched with your opponents, whichever team weighs better will win my ballot. With this being said, please weigh for the love of God
Tech > Truth
If you’re going to spread, send a speech doc. With this being said, you will make my day marginally worse if you spread. Also, if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it. I will flow from a doc as long as you're comprehensible. SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS
I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. Update: I'll call for evidence if two teams seem to fundamentally disagree about what the evidence actually says.

I won’t flow cross, but everything said is binding (unless it's obvious you misspoke). If it's important, mention it in a speech.
If it’s not in Summary, it’s not in Final
Going for everything is not a strategic way to win my ballot
Final should write my ballot for me
If an overview non-uniques both cases and no warrant is read on which side to presume, I'm ignoring the overview
Feel free to post-round me, but just know, even if you convince me in post-round, you lost because you were unable to make that clear in round
A claim without a warrant is not an argument. The burden is on you to give me a warrant, not the other team to call it out.

Prog:

Theory is fine but note two things:

Don’t make me sit through stupid theory shells
If you’re a big school running against a small school (for anything except serious abuse), I will judge you fairly but I will tank your speaks

I’m generally not well versed in other types of progressive argumentation. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on it. Take this as you will.

Other random stuff:

Your speaks will represent your strategic decisions in the round and not your actual speaking ability. Read smart stuff, get good speaks.
Generally, I give pretty high speaks.
I rarely flow author names so just give me a short synopsis as you extend
Finally, following PF Finals at Harvard, so I can feel comfortable giving a Catherine Liu-esque decision next time: I won't evaluate unweighed competing links to the same impact. Nothing was worse than sitting there for five minutes sifting through evidence trying to conjure up reasons why whatever link was stronger to climate change. In fact, I'll even steal her exact wording:

"Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed."

I doubt this will come up often again, but it helps me sleep better at night.

FOR PARLI: No off-time roadmaps unless there is something complicated. Just tell me where you are starting. Y'all literally give off-time roadmaps to your off-time roadmaps.

Caleb Chen Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 5:03 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Caleb, a senior at Durham Academy. I've been debating for like 3-4 years on the national circuit and I've had some decent enough success so I'd like to believe I'm pretty experienced.

Paradigm:

IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT. PLEASE EXPLAIN, WARRANT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IMPLICATE EVERYTHING WELL

Copied from Alex Huang: (Alternatively, you can read Ben Hodges or really any other Durham debater's paradigm I think we all think about debate relatively the same way)

For novices.

I think DSDLs are a fantastic opportunity to learn and I want to help y'all do that to the best of my ability.

So ask questions! Probably not during the round, but before and after the round definitely.

And most of all, be nice! We're all just here to learn and have fun, so help me do that, help your opponents do that, and help yourself do that.

This is how you win my ballot:

Collapse- There is not enough time in summary and final focus to talk about every argument in-depth, so please choose one of your contentions to focus on (collapse on, or "go for). This should be the one you extend.

Extend- Make sure in the back half of the round (the summary and final focus speeches), you re-explain the argument you are "going for" and collapsing on. Tell me in detail what will happen when I negate/affirm, and why that's a reason to vote for you!

Warrant- Tell me why. Make sure you give reasoning for all of your arguments and responses! It will be very difficult for me to vote for you if all I have to work with is "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession." So tell me why it will cause a recession, e.g. "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession because ____ which means _____ which causes ______ because of ________.

Implicate/Interact- I know from experience that often times while debating, it is very clear to me how all the arguments relate to each other and respond to one another. However, that doesn't mean it is clear to the judge. So make sure you go the whole nine yards and be very explicit in explaining to me how your arguments fit into the round. This means telling me why your responses take out your opponents argument, why your opponents argument doesn't take out your argument, and why I should prefer your responses over your opponent's.

Signpost- Piggybacking off of the implicating explanation, your responses and speeches might be super organized in your head, but that doesn't mean it will be organized to me, the judge. Instead, please signpost, i.e., tell me what you are talking about before you talk about it. If you are talking about their argument, maybe say "on their argument," but then say "now on our argument," when switching to talking about yours. Also, number your responses, e.g. say "on their argument about _____, we have four responses. first, _____, second, _____ etc."

Weigh - Compare your arguments and tell me why yours is more important! To do this well your weighing needs to be warranted and comparative. It will be difficult for me to vote for you if you just say "our argument is more important on magnitude." Instead tell me something like, "our argument is more important because it results in deaths, something that cannot be recovered from, whereas their argument only concerns an economic downturn, which the economy can bounce back from."

Make a Basketball Reference for Boosted Speaks!

Brian Choi Hire

Paresh Chotaliya Hire

Last changed on Tue June 13, 2023 at 4:49 AM CDT

If my email is needed for any purpose, it is pc727970@gmail.com.

Hey! I'm Paresh Chotaliya, although Parry works as well. I have experience in mostly LD, WSD, and Extemporaneous Speaking (Extemp), however, I did a little PF and CX and I understand it to a limited extent. I don't like being called judge, so just call me by my name.

LD-

I like Yale's Speaker Points guide:

WSD-

I am fairly new to WSD, having only debated it for a year. However, I strongly believe that this is a purely logic-based debate. What do I mean by that? I expect good clashes and rebuttals in the round based on the logic of the argument. You should be able to prove to me why the opposition's logic does not make sense, and why yours does. I also do believe in the structure of speeches, 1s should be substantive-based, and the Opp 1 should have some refutation. The 2s should have a majority of refutation with some impact weighing. The 3s should have either clash points or world analysis, with a brief refutation in the beginning if needed and impact weighing again at the end. The 4 should be a supplement to the 3, either expanding on the points the 3 made or covering the other side (clash or world).

UPDATE: I have now debated on the international level, and I do find some new criteria.

I don't think a lack of a 3rd sub in the 2 is strategic in most cases, but if there is a great reason to, I will give you full points for strategy. It's pretty obvious when there is a strategic reason to.
Make sure no new examples/evidence are brought up in the 4. This is a strict rule, and if you do, or even try to sandbag it in, I will give you low speaks.
Be respectful with POIs; no badgering, make them short and give the speaker a chance to respond. If you're clarifying something, just say the clarification, don't re-explain it to me.
I highly recommend these slides to look at, I do look at these criteria when judging: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dQ4SOa1tsfrRuE5fOCEqc1J3F5m6o5BD-YqX9e2quN8/edit#slide=id.g1834de5c652_0_7

PF-

I will say one thing about PF: It is meant to be the common man's debate, accessible to the public (hence its name). I will NOT appreciate any theory, Ks, etc. As you can probably guess, spreading is off the table as well. I should be able to understand this even if I were a parent judge who's judging for the 1st or 2nd time.

For all debates- I have no idea how to debate Ks, so don't expect me to vote off it. It's a matter of me not understanding Ks. DAs and CPs, and to some extent Ts and some theory, I can handle. All other "progressive" or "tech" arguments, I know nothing about.

Extemp-

This is a speech event, don't talk to me like this is a debate round. Use:

•Clear Speech

•Confidence

•Concise Points

•At least 1 piece of evidence per general point

•Analysis

•Intro & Conclusion

I should be able to be convinced by your points or learn something new from your speech. That will easily rank you very high.

Final Thoughts:

My main teachers for debate were Ronak Patel, Aman Chaudhary, and Valentin Jimenez. While they did a lot of CX, I did very little, however, I do align with them for LD and PF. For speech, it was Sneha Jobby (even though her paradigm doesn't say much.) I'll copy the parts that I align with here to save you some time:

Aman/Ronak:

PF isn't a speed debate so don't spread. I vote on strong links and impact calculus so make sure to highlight these. Evidence is really crucial in PF, having recent evidence and having strong internal warrants matters a lot.

Mr. J:

For LD, I love a great clash between values and criterions. Don't dismiss this aspect because to me this is where the original "framework" resides. CPs in LD will be judged based on the CX perspective and thus must be mutually exclusive and competitive. DAs must be presented to evaluate a CP. Give voters at the end.

Public Forum is more of a discussion for me and not necessarily based on card after card after card! Leave this for CX debate. Instead work on explaining and carrying the big picture in the round. No need to do line by line as time doesn't permit it anyway (unless you spread!). Plans and CPs have no role in Public Forum, so do not do it as I have no preference for this as an evaluator! Give voters at the end!

Sneha:

Public Address Events: I love engaging hooks that are cleverly tied into the topic of your speech. For extemp, please use at least four sources.

For any other event, ask me in rounds and I will give verbal paradigms

Say potato (non-discretely) before the round and I'll give you 2 extra speaker points. Say "Yeet that argument out of the window" and I'll give 3 speaker points. For WSD, multiply that by 2.

Aliya Jaye Delnore Hire

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 9:52 AM EDT

Overall

What makes PF special, and by that I mean better than policy and LD, is lay judges. I know, I know, we all hate them, but lay judges are something beautiful. They're a sample of the average idiot American. They are unconvinced by trix, unless the theory debate is there; they need to actually be convinced in order to buy kritiks; and they are full of dumb and unfounded biases about reality. I think lay judges are a valuable part of PF, and so I try to basically simulate a (good) lay judge as much as possible, even though I am flowing everything.

Speed

I can handle basically anything up to 300 wpm, and if you're going faster than that in PF, you need to chill.

Style

I'm completely open to progressive arguments, but the alts have got to be there. "Change starts right here" can only work in very specific circumstances; a land acknowledgement at the beginning of your speech isn't going to unmake Mount Rushmore. Making Ks have theory-style impacts ("drop them for saying 'terrorists'") or linking them to a concrete behavioral change that I or the opposition could actually make (not having kids?) are the sorts of things that are much easier for me to get along with.

Evidence

Don't get bogged down in evidence debates. Once I've heard an indict, I'm going to have very little patience for a response to it, and I'm not particularly interested in specific word choice in the conclusions of papers. Concentrate on weighing instead, like debaters.

Cross

I'll be flowing cross. I like cross. It's the best part of some rounds, when used well; an opportunity to establish just how much you know about the topic and how clueless your opponents are, and ethos is critical. Don't just handwavily ignore cross, and don't sacrifice grand cross for final focus. That's especially because...

THE DEBATE ENDS IN GRAND CROSS. This is my current position, after looking through all sorts of different rules and theory shells. "It's too late to introduce a new argument" is true in exactly one speech: final focus. Before then, you do indeed have a chance to respond, so don't go and try to tell me you don't. Just saying "it was too late for us to respond" is literally evidence to the contrary. If you introduce new evidence in second summary, it had better be good, but a new analytical argument or weighing mechanism is perfectly fine up until grand cross -- as long as the opposition will still get to editorialize in final focus, it seems fair enough by me.

Kaleb Gebresillasie Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:11 PM MDT

email: ask in round.

TLDR: Tech over everything. Fine for any argument, but my background and personal beliefs are more policy than critical. Debate’s a game, but you can make arguments for why it should be treated differently.

Evaluating Debates:

I judge debates technically. I’ll flow---even if requested not to---and will decide the debate through an offense/defense paradigm. I can be persuaded to adopt a different judging rubric, but am extremely unlikely to abandon the conventions of technical debating (concessions are true, new arguments are illegitimate, and so on).

I’ve noticed I have a lower bar for a ‘warrant’ than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument for being a ‘cheap shot’ and certainly not for lacking some nebulous ‘data’ that many adjudicators use as an excuse to enforce their own argumentative preferences. In my experience, unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross-applications, or equally unwarranted arguments.

I’ll reject new arguments and protect earlier speeches judiciously, but you need to actually flag an argument as new in your speech.

Judging Philosophy:

The way I see debate is when you walk in the room, you enter a game. I as a judge have a limited amount of restrictions and "settings" for the game. Other than that, do whatever you want to win.

Here are the rules/settings I'm talking about.

General:Proper NSDA rules.
You: Send Case docs with cut cards before case is read
You: Send Rebuttal doc before rebuttal is read, send all rebuttal cards after rebuttal.
Me: I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm.
Don'ts: 1] Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not that deep. 2] Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything. And I'll hack.3] Clipping. if you don't read something on the doc, send a marked doc after. (updated doc w/o stuff you didn't read) I will constantly check speech doc to check back against clipping. If you spread so unclear that no one knows what you read, I'm still considering that as clipping.If a team clips and you call them out and read a reason to drop them. I will drop them and give you 30 peaks.
You. Pls read weighing. Or else I will be forced to intervene which you most def don't want. (I evaluate pre-reqs/short circuits first then link-ins and then scope/mag then lastly timeframe.
You. No "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary. just say "prefer on empirics"
You. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what. If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation.
As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene (i probably will unless if it's super bad) but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like and fw these

Theory (but not stupid and friv)
Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
Framing / Meta Weighing
I err heavily towards paraphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Also, I lowk fw presumption. If no one reads warrants I presume first speaking. You Ccan read in any speech except 2nd final.

Things I don't care bout.

idc if you sit down, stand, do a backflip
play music.
taking prep instead of grand
if both ppl talk in cross.

Ishaan Gupta Hire

Benjamin Hodges Hire

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 6:37 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Ben, and I'm a senior debating for Durham Academy. I've done debate for three years on both the local and national circuits.

He/Him Pronouns

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

TLDR - Flow judge, tech > truth, a little tired of the blippy state of flow, WARRANT PLEASE I BEG YOU

Be nice and respectful. Being rude and condescending will not make up for you not knowing how to make winning analysis and I will drop speaks. I understand debate can be stressful but try your best to make it fun. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

For Novices at DSDL 4:

To win my ballot, you can read any argument you would like. You simply need to be winning that argument (responding to all responses) and EXTEND that argument in every speech (that means briefly reexplain the argument in speech). The same goes for responses to your opponents. Make sure you are carrying those through in every speech.

All of your arguments, responses, etc. need to be warranted with an explanation from them. When responding to arguments and responses, use warrants and reasoning to tell me why your analysis is better. If you don't do this, there will simply be opposing ideas without any way to know which is right or better and I won't know how to resolve the issue.

Finally, try to weigh your arguments if you can. That means telling me why your argument is more important than your opponents. This is important in the case that both teams are winning enough of their argument for me to have to choose which one I need to vote for.

Overall, have fun and be kind :)

How I Evaluate Rounds:

I evaluate rounds by first seeing what argument or impact the weighing being won is pointing me to and I see who has links into that weighing. I will not vote for an argument that has 100% conceded weighing if you aren't winning the link into the weighing. If both teams are winning links into the same weighing, I need link comparison, uniqueness comparison, etc. to break the clash

With that being said, I think weighing is overrated and prioritized way too much by judges. That's not to say it's not important. If both teams win substantial offense, I need weighing to evaluate the round, but if you are not winning a substantial link into your weighing, you can't just win off of weighing.

Everything has to be warranted and implicated in every speech and extended in the back half for me to vote on it. I will not vote for something that does not have a warrant regardless of whether it is pointed out. I'll only do this if its egregious, so I'll still vote for something a little under warranted provided the other team doesn't point it out.

Basically, read any argument you want. If you win the argument and weigh it well, I will vote for you.

Technical Stuff and Preferences:

No new arguments after 1st summary and you cannot add parts of an argument that were missing when you first read them. If an argument didn't have an internal link in case or rebuttal, it can't suddenly appear in summary.

I'm okay with speed. If you're going over 1050 words for a 4-minute speech, I'll need a doc to flow off of. Go faster than that at your own risk but I should do fine provided I have a doc.

The state of evidence in PF is really really bad. I won't vote off of evidence that is bad or unwarranted over a good, thought out analytic

Progressive Debate:

Not a big fan of theory but you are more than welcome to run it. I'll objectively evaluate most procedural theory like para and disclo and have experience debating it. I have a high threshold for theory and likely will not vote off of friv like shoes so don't be mad if I drop you for running that.

You can read Ks. I have a good bit of experience debating against them but not running them so please explain your literature and WARRANT it. So many K rounds I see have negative warranting and just devolve to the K team out spreading under warranted claims and attaching the word epistemological or pedagogical to different arguments without ever explaining to me the judge how I should be voting. Please give the issues Ks discuss the quality discussion they deserve.

Speaks:

I will try to make my speaks determinations based on your technical decision-making, organization, sign-posting etc ---- essentially how easy you make it for me to follow you and know how to vote. I will not make my determinations off fluency. As someone who struggled with stuttering a lot, I understand how speaks can punish people with different abilities and will try to stay away from that.

That's it. Have fun!

Fiona Hu Hire

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 6:01 AM EDT

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.

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.

Kevin Hu Hire

Alexander Huang Hire

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM EDT

Hi! I'm Alex and I'm a senior at Durham Academy where I've debated for four years. In that time, I've gone to 60 tournaments (I counted to write this paradigm) and won a good number of them, so I would consider myself pretty experienced.

For novices.

I think DSDLs are a fantastic opportunity to learn and I want to help y'all do that to the best of my ability.

So ask questions! Probably not during the round, but before and after the round definitely.

And most of all, be nice! We're all just here to learn and have fun, so help me do that, help your opponents do that, and help yourself do that.

This is how you win my ballot:

Collapse - There is not enough time in summary and final focus to talk about every argument in-depth, so please choose one of your contentions to focus on (collapse on, or "go for). This should be the one you extend.

Extend - Make sure in the back half of the round (the summary and final focus speeches), you re-explain the argument you are "going for" and collapsing on. Tell me in detail what will happen when I negate/affirm, and why that's a reason to vote for you!

Warrant - Tell me why. Make sure you give reasoning for all of your arguments and responses! It will be very difficult for me to vote for you if all I have to work with is "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession." So tell me why it will cause a recession, e.g. "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession because ____ which means _____ which causes ______ because of ________.

Implicate/Interact - I know from experience that often times while debating, it is very clear to me how all the arguments relate to each other and respond to one another. However, that doesn't mean it is clear to the judge. So make sure you go the whole nine yards and be very explicit in explaining to me how your arguments fit into the round. This means telling me why your responses take out your opponents argument, why your opponents argument doesn't take out your argument, and why I should prefer your responses over your opponent's.

Signpost - Piggybacking off of the implicating explanation, your responses and speeches might be super organized in your head, but that doesn't mean it will be organized to me, the judge. Instead, please signpost, i.e., tell me what you are talking about before you talk about it. If you are talking about their argument, maybe say "on their argument," but then say "now on our argument," when switching to talking about yours. Also, number your responses, e.g. say "on their argument about _____, we have four responses. first, _____, second, _____ etc."

Molly Huang Hire

Yakub Islamov Hire

Ben Jacobs Hire

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 10:53 AM EDT

Hi everyone! I'm Ben. I'm currently a freshman at Vanderbilt studying economics and history. I debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit. I now do collegiate BP and coach PF on the side for Myers Park and Canyon Crest Academy. You can call me Ben, not judge.

Add me to the chain- bgkkjacobs@gmail.com .

Send all cases on an email chain with a label (ie. TOC R1F1 Myers Park BJ v Cary LJ). Either call for specific cards or ask for speech docs, calling for all ev on a contention is just a waste of time. Send speech docs for all prog rounds.

I don't care what you wear. Speak how you want. Embrace the human element of speaking and don't turn into a robot in speech.

My paradigm is disgustingly long, so, if you are just doing a trad round and need my basic round preferences then read the stuff with a ❤️ by the title.

WEIGHING❤️-

Weigh early and intentionally. Just saying I outweigh on scope so you should vote for me is barely anything. Name dropping STIMP is boring and usually promotes non comparative weighing. Think harder and deeper in your weighing if you can. Obviously these things are the building blocks of weighing and will be involved but don't expect saying "ours happens first so we outweigh on timeframe" to convince me to vote for you.

I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args- if you are telling me a nuclear winter is going to happen you need to give me a step by step warrant not just some random conspiracy theorist on the internet saying we are all going to go boom.
Good Analytics> mid cards any day

SPEED ❤️-

I will not flow spreading nor will I flow off a doc (I like it when you send a doc but I won’t flow exclusively from it). I don't mind you talking fast and can flow faster than your average judge, but I don't enjoy flowing the absurd. The only time you should be using speed is for depth, not spamming arguments. The faster you go, the worse my flow gets and the worse my decision will be.

SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-

Give me a quick off time roadmap before your speeches (ex. "My case then their case"). That's it.
Always put FW at the top of the speech if present.
I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind me what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.

HOW I VOTE ❤️-

I usually only evaluate voters given to me in final. I need you to give me voters as early as rebuttal, and definitely by summary, but I won't carry anything through for my vote unless it is in final. Even if a contention is clean, you have to extend it with warrants if you want me to sign my ballot on it.

THEORY-

I will evaluate on competing interps or reasonability, but I much prefer a round with competing interps. Feel free to use reasonability if you think it makes more sense for the round.

Most common theory rounds have ground on both sides. The point of me evaluating these rounds is to allow you to explore the net benefits of an action taken in round through discourse. Prove that the world of debate you argue for has more value than the world your opponent argues for. The violation is only there for you to show that your team operates under a different standard as the other team. Competing interps ought to be a round of world comparison not an endless repetition of "drop the debater".

It is my expectation that any debater in varsity on the nat circuit can defend against theory. This does not mean beating up on first time nat circuit debaters is a good idea for me, I will tank your speaks for it. It just means "I don't know how to respond" will never be any form of defense.

Ks- These are fun. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds. I am becoming increasingly open to these arguments when they are run well.

The Non Topical K

If we can link everything in debate (even organic agriculture) to nuke war then you can link every topic to feminism, the patriarchy, cap, etc. I think the ability to link these in are an important skill for a K debater. You can try to change my mind, I won't auto vote down a performance K or other non topical K because I recognize that they have had some positive impact on the debate space- I am just trying to be honest about how much I will demand from them. Your opponent will still need to run T properly for me to vote against your lack of topical links.

The topical K

I am happy to hear a topical K, they are super fun if they are run well. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. I hate Ks that are super complicated. It is your job as a debater to simplify your arguments for presentation or it is going to be really hard for me to vote. My 2 biggest difficulties with most PF Ks I see are as follows

1. The literature is too dense and those who read it barely understand what it is saying because they have just stolen cut cards from policy and LD. Thus, I implore you to cut the card in a way that your message could be clear to the public forum, not someone who has a PhD in the subject. You don't just get to drop all efforts at persuasion because you are running a K. You don't have policy time so don't make policy arguments. Get depth not breadth.

2. The alt is heavily under-warranted and vague. Ex. If you are running cap, you can't just read some poli sci professor who claims socialism is the solution to the world's problems and that we have to have a worker's revolution. You have to actually tell me why this exact scenario leads to better outcomes than the squo of capitalism.

A well run, persuasive K with a based alt makes for a very fun round. If you believe this is what you have come to the round with, fire away.

If you have reached this point in my paradigm then tell me the starting lineup of any NBA team and I will bump everyone's speaks 1 point (no cheating...). You can also tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump everyone's speaks .5 for actually reading my ramble.

POSTROUNDING

I always disclose. I already submitted the ballot but you can tell me you think my decision was wrong if it makes you feel better (it might have been).

QUICK IN-PERSON ROUND NOTE ❤️

I need two pieces of paper to flow on.

Karina Ji Hire

Neil Jin Hire

Jae Kim Hire

Last changed on Thu March 28, 2024 at 6:21 AM PDT

NO SHIRT

NO SHOES

NO BALLOT

now on a serious note

hey i'm jae! im a first year out and competed at torrey pines in san diego (torrey pines kt/tk). debated pf nat circ for the first three years of hs and coached my senior year. i've gotten some bids, qualled toc, ndcas, and made late outrounds at a couple of nat circ tournaments. i now debate policy at UC Davis and coach pf.

debate is all about learning to get better, don't be afraid to use me as a resource
if you have any questions (in round or debate in general) or need/want any help, feel free to ask anytime.

email: jnkim@ucdavis.edu

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jae.kim.503645

defaults:

- comparative worlds

- competing interps > reasonability

- theory/t > k > case

- drop the arg > drop the debater

- no rvis

- fairness > education

- text > spirit

- ethical certainty

- presume first speaking team

round stuff:

- debate is a game, play however you want to win

- i flow/tabula rasa

- i disclose and will also disclose speaks if you ask

- read and wear whatever you'd like

- add me to the chain (same email above); send case/ev docs before round; use email chains, not google docs

- flip/preflow before the round. fast evidence exchanges. i don't flow anything over time.

- you can do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.

- do whatever you want in cross, i literally don't care and im probably not paying attention anyways

- i am fine with speed, but depending on the time of day my ability to keep up varies. pref dont spread. SLOW DOWN WHEN SWITCHING BETWEEN PAGES/SPOTS ON THE FLOW. please give me speech docs and slow down a bit in the back half.

- i'm pretty generous with speaks bc screws suck :(

- i don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. i view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. it's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- asking questions after the round is fine. light post-rounding is fine. be aggressive/disrespectful at your own risk, i will probably match your energy as well as dock speaks.

- you can swear in round. don't make it excessive though.

- absolutely nothing remotely _ist; L20

- everything must be responded to in the next speech or its conceded, besides constructive. defense is never sticky.

- every round is decided by determining what the highest layer of offense is -> who links into that best

- signpost PLEASE

- weigh weigh weigh. link comparison. warrant comparison. i vote for the team with the strongest link into the strongest impact (clean pieces of offense). i like voting on turns but they must be weighed and have impacts. pre-req weighing is the best but do it right.

- collapse in the back half and do metaweighing

- high threshold for extensions. i don't acknowledge blippy extensions on anything. link and impact extension on any piece of offense in summary and ff.

- in order for defense to be terminal, it only has to be implicated as such and be resolved against frontlines. if these criteria are not met, i will assume there is a small but nonzero risk of a link story happening, which bears the risk of allowing your opponents the ability to win the round off of the framing debate and a risk of a link.

- if you want to concede defense to kick out of the turns, you MUST do it the speech right after the turns are read and must point out the specific piece of defense you concede/explain why it takes out the turn.

- i believe debate is a game with educational aspects; that means i will literally vote off of anything from death good to a game of chess if that's the consensus rotb

- regardless of paraphrasing, you MUST have cut cards or you're capped at max 26.5 speaks for being cringe

- if a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, i’ll give them double 30s

- if your opponent has no path to the ballot, invoke a TKO and you win with 30s

i hate intervening. as a result, you can lie, read false evidence, etc. if it is not called out by your opponents, i will not do anything. in my view, my role as a judge is not to be a referee nor an educator (which is a coach's job), but rather to be a blank slate in the back of the room. all the "educating" will happen AFTER the round, but i see no need and have no desire to meddle with the content of the round.

TL;DR: collapse, extend, weigh pls :D

Trigger Warnings

i don't require trigger warnings and will never opt out of any argument. trigger warnings have been widely misused and weaponized in debate to make me feel comfortable enough to not care about them. i won't penalize the absence of trigger warnings nor hack for them either. feel free to run trigger warning good/bad theory if you really care.

Framework

go crazy. i ran a lot of framework when i debated. structural violence is my comfort zone. default util.

Prog

- must send everyone a speech doc if reading any prog args

- i evaluate any prog arguments (Theory, K, T, tricks, PICs, etc.)

- pref shell format

- i dont care if you read friv shells, it's probably funny

- im more familiar with theory and ran it at a couple tournaments

- im wayyy less familiar with Ks so flesh out and explain your Ks well since im not the best judge for those types of rounds. im most familiar with model minority and ive hit quite a few fem Ks throughout my career

- if you are going to swing wildly outside of the pf meta, and read phil-rooted args, i am going to be confused and will require a lot of slow explanation. make sure you're extending the rotb, alt, link-- every part of the K, in order to garner offense.

if you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, i will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory/theory excludes me because i don't know how to debate it" response. do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation.

as an aside to this ^, if you read anything from this article as a reason why theory is bad, i'm probably just going to intervene. this is one of the worst takes i've ever heard, and i'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity propagate. this is the one spot i feel 0 shame in intervening.

remember to have fun and make friends!

Speaks boosts:

guess my favorite esports team: +0.5 speaks

guess my favorite hockey team: +0.5 speaks

if you're dulaney faith zhao: -30 speaks with a loss

for more info, my judging philosophy/paradigm was inspired by Dylan Beach, Katheryne Dwyer, Skylar Wang, and Eli Glickman.

Matthew Kim Hire

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 3:29 AM EDT

he/him; 4th yr pf @ oakton; add me to the email chain: d.kim.matthew@gmail.com

Read specific content warnings w/ anonymous opt-out forms--ex here

Traditional pf judge--tech > truth

Non-negotiables

- Collapse + weigh

- Debate is a game! Play to win.

- Read specific content warnings, w/ anonymous opt out forms instead of text, and ample response time. Ask beforehand if you're unsure what warrants one, always err on the side of caution

Please:

- Run whatever you want

- Tell a joke! Unless you arent funny

winning my ballot starts with comparative weighing. I vote for the team with the strongest link into the least mitigated impact.

- One good weighing mechanism adapted to the context of the round > many pre-typed, blippy ones

- Few good pieces of evidence > lots of sketchy pieces of evidence; Big brain analytics > generic responses from your blockfile

- If its not in summary it shouldn't be in final focus, that includes new weighing

- Cross is binding.

- I presume neg, then coinflip, but try to find any risk of offense before presumption

Prog

- no prog on newer debaters, no experience evaluating as a judge, no tricks

- Theory's fine in shell format, I default to competing interps + no rvis.

- K's are a no-go--run at your own risk, explain everything, don't use jargon, and really understand what you're saying instead of pulling them from random backfiles.

Prefs

- PF speed is fine, don't spread, even with docs and especially if you paraphrase.

- Flex prep is fine if your opps are cool w/ it.

- Postround

Speaks

- Extremely subjective so i'll prolly give everyone high speaks regardless of who won the round

- Being problematic scores you an L20

- Steal prep & I'll steal speaks

- +.5 for proper disclosure on the wiki; show me you did before the round

- +.1 for every joke; they don't count if I didn't catch em & they better be funny

Misc

- I'll disclose with feedback whenever possible

- Debate can be real stressful! Feel free to email or text on Messenger if I can make the round more accessible for you in any way

- A lot of this may have been pretty incoherent-- lmk before/after round with any questions. Anmol Malviya, Karin Liu, and William Fan also have similar takes on debate

Sumedh Kotrannavar Hire

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 11:00 AM EDT

Pulled from Justin Black

Tech > Truth for the most part. Read me agoodwarrant and if your opponents don’t respond I’ll believe it. (No death good arguments or actual racism, not that I expect to see this in PF, but nevertheless I won’t evaluate them and you’ll get an automatic 26L).

Every argument that isn’t responded to is conceded (Offense and defense) but weighing an argument in the backhalf that you conceded in the first half is fine and encouraged).

Defense isn’t sticky

I can evaluate hyper tech rounds but always prefer a flay debate as I believe that debate should teach skills applicable to real world scenarios.

Progressive Argumentation:

My tolerance for…: (0-10, 10 being most tolerant)

Tricks: 0

I won’t evaluate them

K: 4

I’ll try my best to evaluate them. Send me a speech doc if it’s big brain stuff, I’m not as well read on philosophy as I used to be but I can probably catch on pretty quick. I’d prefer it if your identity wasn’t the sole link to your argument because I feel like in some cases it commodifies oppression but as long as you have a good enough alt and run it for what appears to be good reasons idrc. A few things to keep in mind: I’ve never ran a K. I’ve only watched one a couple times. Take this as you will. I will buy priori offense almost 99% of the time unless your opponents can link into the real world with why we should debate substance.

If your opponent doesn’t understand your K and that’s why their responses are bad then my threshold for voting on it will be much higher. It is your job to convey understanding to everyone in the room and if you don’t you are being exclusionary. I also don’t believe that your opponents should have to concede to have a conversation. If you want to have a conversation, you concede. Granted, if your opponents do this on their own free will, fine. But don’t pressure them.

Theory: 4

Run theory for actual abuse. I’ll listen to disclosure, but if you are a big school and run a small schools link on a small school (think less than like 3 V teams in the pool) I will give you 26L and be really pissed.

I’ll evaluate paraphrase theory but unless you warrant it out really well I’m more inclined to drop the argument than the debater. If their entire case is paraphrased, well… But if it’s only a few cards or like a de-link read in rebuttal than this applies. Do not run this against small schools.

My tolerance for theory is much higher when it’s big school vs. big school. I like a good theory debate when it’s not just ran against small schools to get cheap easy wins.

My tolerance for RVIs goes up the more frivolous the theory is, but it’s your opponents burden of proof to prove this.

Framework: 9

Just don’t run racist America first type framework arguments. If you wanna run a framework to go against the impact filter of the round feel free

Spreading: 2

Don’t do it. If you do, send a speech doc. To everyone. This isn’t me asking, it’s a requirement. Anything I can’t hear I’m not evaluating. If you do it against a novice or local circuit debaters I will probably do everything I can to give them the win. Spreading 9 contentions in PF is not a strategic way to win my ballot.

Substance specific:

Case:Clear links and impacts preferred. 4 minutes 10 is fine idrc. Don’t need to say the resolution I probably already know it. Don’t change your case for me or anyone before the round. Just chillax when pairings come out, I understand you can’t conform to every judges preferences.

Cross ex:Don’t be rude. Don’t answer a 10 second question with 2 minutes. Girls, don’t be afraid to call out guys for talking over you. Guys, if a girl is talking for 2 minutes I understand interrupting her but be reasonable about it. If you make cross miserable for the other team I’ll make your speaker points miserable. Just be friendly. I don’t care if it gets a little aggressive, but I’ll let you know when enough is enough. I won’t flow cross but I won’t also completely ignore it. Everything said is binding unless you like obviously misspoke.

Rebuttal:First rebuttal, spend all four minutes responding and weighing. You don’t have to extend your case. If you predict your opponents responses to your case with remaining time you’re a baller and I’ll give you +0.5 speaks. Turns and offensive overviews are okay - new contentions are not. I prefer a line by line rebuttal

Second rebuttal should be both front lining (defending) your own case and responding to their case. Weigh early on and often. No new front lining in summary. Turns and offensive overviews are okay - new contentions are not.

Summary:Collapse on a few points. Extend links and impact on your own offense and extend defense on their case. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh.

Final:Guide me to my ballot. Write it for me. Explain why I’m voting for you. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh.

The best way to win my ballot:

- Comparative weighing (not just scope, magnitude, etc. I'm fine with metaweighing but i'd prefer you interact with your opponents arguments and not just say "we outweigh on magnitude")

- Strength of Link over probability

- Guide me to my ballot

- Collapse on a few important points

- Have a clear narrative

If you want to question my decision post-round, do it. It won't change but I want you feel like you fully understand why I voted like I did.

Speaker Points (I give them out based on debate skills, not speaker skills)

30 You're destined for great things.

29 Excellent

28 Solid

27 Okay

Above all else, have fun!! Relax. I’m not a mean judge and I will make sure everyone is comfortable above all else. Debate should be fun and exciting, not stressful and traumatic.

Eric Liu Hire None

Arshi Maniar Hire None

Arnav Mehta Hire

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 3:01 AM CDT

ravenwood '25 - codes mm, ym, sm - a few bids

arnavmehta1977@gmail.com (put me on chain, send docs for all speeches before giving them + send marked docs after speech)

Substance/general

tech > truth (meaning i vote on the best link into the best weighed impact)
ill vote for any topical argument with a warrant. i run squirrely topical bs all the time so my threshold for buying weird/unique arguments is super low AS LONG AS IT HAS A WARRANT
ill drop you with lowest possible speaks for any -isms
second rebuttal needs to FL any offense you want to go for in the backhalf and turns and DAs and such
obv no new stuff in 2ff- ill drop your speaks for it
ill disclose and give RFD- post rounding is good pls do it
terminalize your impacts unless you can do rly good link weighing
you can take prep while waiting for ur opponents to send evidence
PLEASE WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH EVERYTHING ESP TURNS (good link weighing is beautfiul)
pls go for turns in the backhalf- i think its super under-utilized and impressive when u do it well
cussing is fine in round just be relatively respectful of ur opponents
I'll call for evidence that I think it is SUPER important or if I am told to call for it
If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.
your speaks will be high (28.5+) unless you're annoying or-ist

Theory

THE ONLY SHELL I ABSOLUTELY HATE IS FULL TEXT DISCLO GOOD
Im relatively comfortable evaluating most theory rounds.
i'm familiar w round reports, disclosure, para, spreading as shells
weighing is extremely important in theory rounds- would love for the backhalf to look like going for 1,2 standards and weihging them like crazy. weigh links into voters too
friv theory is fine but my response threshold will be a little lower
IF U READ AN OFFENSIVE CI OR GO FOR A TURN ON ONE OF THEIR STANDARDS YOU DONT NECESSAIRLY NEED TO WIN RVIS DEBATE
theory should be read in the speech following the violation- disclo/round reports should be read in constructive
metatheory is fine
Default CI>reasonability, but every other paradigm issue needs to be read otherwise theory becomes a wash
pls dont violate your own interp/CI lmao

K/tricks

I PROBABLY CANT EVALUATE Ks AS WELL AS U WANT ME TO SO I WOULD ADVISE NOT RUNNING
My experience with Ks is: reading hinduphobia performance at debate camp once and hitting a cap K once
if u rly want to run it go as slow as possible and minimize complex jargon
dont read tricks - i wont evaluate them cuz i don’t understand them

I'll give you 30's if you:

only read impact turns in 1st rebuttal/ 2nd constructive

carti lyric in any speech
recommend me a good song after round and i enjoy it
collapse only on turns in the backhalf

Sarayu Raghuraman Nattamai Hire

ethan khoa ngo Hire

Last changed on Sat August 20, 2022 at 6:20 AM CDT

Email: ethan.khoa.ngo@gmail.com

My face and expression are very easy to read. If I don't like something, you can tell. If I love something, you can tell. If I absolutely despise something, you can tell. If you tell a joke and I don't find it funny, you can tell.

If you can say "Yeet this argument out the window" with a straight face, I'll give you an additional speaker point. If you laugh while you say it I will take away a speaker point.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I'm not too fond of progressive debate. I prefer traditional argumentation and clashing of philosophies.

I will not flow what I do not hear. Keep it comprehensive and minimize redundancies. If you spread, I won't flow your arguments. Please do not give me a document with hundreds of cards.
This event is a philosophical and logic-based debate. Logic and theory should hold precedence over anything else. I want to see your thoughts, not the thoughts of John Doe 2016. Your arguments shouldn't only be cards.
The framework is the most significant part of the debate. Your value and criterion take precedence. Your contentions should only help support your framework.
This event is not a policy debate. You are debating the ethical values, philosophy, and logic, not how we should solve it. I will consider plans and counter plans, but if they do not support your framework, they are useless.

Be sure to give a roadmap and voters. I will vote on whichever debater has the best argumentation that supports their framework.

PUBLIC FORUM

Personally, I do not like progressive debate.

I am a traditional debater. Do not run progressive debate tactics such as K's, T shells, DA's, etc. I will not flow any of these. However, I'm fine with plans.
Public Forum focuses on the advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens, a plan, or a value framework. I'm alright with plans and frameworks, but the end goal needs to be your side's advocacy of the topic.
I want to see clashing ideas and in-depth argumentation. If you do not tell me what you know, then do not argue what you know. Additionally, do not introduce new points or contentions in your rebuttals, summary, or FF.
Do not card spam. Do not try to win solely by overwhelming your opponent with cards. Do not use 20 cards to support one point (I have seen it happen to me in a round).

I will vote on whoever has the best advocative argumentation that supports their side while refuting the opposing side.

EXTEMPORANEOUS

Make your speech memorable (in a good way).

Clear speaking
Confident delivery
Comprehensive speech

Eesha Patel Hire

Ronak Kapur Patel Hire

Last changed on Mon March 11, 2024 at 9:48 AM CDT

Please add me to the email chain: rpatel135798642@gmail.com

Speech drop is cooler tho

About me:

LV Hightower '24
POLICY DEBATER
Debated TFA, UIL, and NSDA policy circuit

I mostly judge to help out tournaments/schools with judging because I want tournaments to have more flow judges who know the events rather than parents

NOVICES!!

Stop reading my paradigm (read this section but nothing below)!!! I don't want my paradigm to influence the way you debate. I suggest you don't read it because it will get you confused. Just debate how your coach taught you and I will follow. As a novice, your #1 job is to have fun debating and enjoy your experience. After the round ask me as many questions as you would like and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability with my prior debate knowledge.

Just remember what you practiced and what your coach taught you, no matter win or lose it is great that you are here!

In novice rounds, I will never vote off theory unless it is absolutely egregious/abusive (if you don't know what this means forget I said it).

Scroll down for other events

CX
shortcut:
1 bad - 5 good
Planless K aff - I will use your debate round as an hour-and a half-nap nap then vote neg
DA - 5(who doesn't run DAs)
CP - 5
K - 3 (I only understand a couple so explain)
Topicality - 5 (these are so underused, T debate is what got my partner and I to our first nats)
Theory - 4 (I love good theory debates that aren't pointless if the theory debate is pointless your speaks will reflect it)

Paradigm:

The name of the debate is policy so that's what I expect. I hate going into these debates about how debate is bad and how debate as a norm hurts people. First of all, it really doesn't(why are you here) second of all idgaf. Acc debate something about the topic.Overall I'm tab, I will weigh any kind of argument (Cap good/bad, death good/bad, all that stuff) I'm not picky just make it make sense. The debates I hate judging the most are the debates where nothing is clear and I'm throwing a dart blindfolded for my ballot.

I see condo as an excuse for teams not doing speed drills (just get good)

Tech -x---------- Truth
Condo bad ----------x- Just get good
Policy ---x-------- K
Limits -------x---- aff ground
T -x---------- K aff
Policy fw ---x-------- Any other fw

In constructive spread however fast you want(as long as its understandable) just make sure I have speech doc, if you are reading analytics tell me and slow down and make it a noticeable change in your voice so I know what analytics.

If you want me to vote for T or theory it needs to make up at least 2 minutes of the final speech (2nr or 2ar). If you don't cover it at least that much it the arg has to be so convincing that I feel bad for you about the round.

Most of my cx comes from Aman Chaudhary, Issac Chao, and Valentin Jimenez, they taught me debate so go read their paradigm to find out more about me (good pf and ld cuz he is basically my only basis for those)

I know a bit about the debate, if you are prog please run prog its what I will fully understand coming from CX. Other than that I really want to see a good debate between battling frameworks and values. I think the whole trad LD debate saying "My value is this... My value criterion is this" is overplayed. Just tell me why you win under a fw idc what you value who you value or how you achieve your value. Just outweigh the fw debate and prove you are right and you have my ballot.

I'm cool with DA, CP, and most K's (I'm not the biggest fan of the far-left identity K's there is nothing wrong with them but they leave me with the feeling of voting for the person, not the argument and that is a moral position I would prefer not to be in)

Overall, my ballot is pretty easy to get in LD just don't be basic and be offensive, win FW and outweigh.

I really don't understand this event. I will try to vote as best as I can. I would judge it as a lay CX round about who outweighs the topic. Just be persuasive and make good args and you will be fine. I am very sorry if I jf you. :)

Speaker Points

I tend to give high speaks. I start at a 29 and give you points if you do something good or entertaining and take points if you do something dumb or talk past time.

If you say "Yeet that argument out of the window" with a straight face in your speech I'll give you one extra speaker point, For WSD I'll give points as I see fit

Phanindra Ravi Hire

Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar Hire

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 4:02 PM CDT

Hi! My name is Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar (he/him). I'm a current junior at Ravenwood High School who has debated under variations of Ravenwood SM. I've had a decent amount of success on the local and national circuit. I've had a good amount of experience as well.

Email for Chain: kaushik.sathiya3@gmail.com.

I consider the most important rule in debate as being safe and respectful. In round, be chill, nice, and respectful before the round. If anyone is there before the round, the same rules apply. If I'm there before round, feel free to talk about anything.

Tech > Truth.

How I evaluate the round:

I evaluate the weighing first. Once I determine which team is winning the weighing, I look at their case first. If that team is also winning their case, the round is over. If that team is losing their case, I will presume for the team that is speaking first. I make this notion because first summary and final focus are objectively the hardest speeches in the round. However, if you disagree with me, feel free to make presumption warrants and I will evaluate them.

General:

I am mostly fine with speed. If you start going over 215 words per minute, please send a speech doc before you start the speech.

Please make evidence exchange quick. If it takes longer than 2 minutes to send a piece of evidence, I'm striking it from the flow.

Speech-by-Speech:

Case:

Feel free to read whatever you want as long as it's not excluding anyone. Make sure to give warrants for every argument that you're reading.

Rebuttal:

Feel free to read how many ever overviews/advantages/disadvantages in rebuttal. The only rule I have about that is being clear. It becomes a line where I prefer quality over quantity. Collapsing in second rebuttal is also cool.

Summary & Final Focus:

These are the most important speeches in the round, so it's important that you do them right. Extend your arguments properly."Extend Kumar 23" isn't a proper extension. Please weigh. Please make your weighing comparative. Please make sure that you respond to all weighing in round. These speeches also must mirror each other. I will not evaluate anything new.

Progressive Argumentation:

I would highly prefer that you do not read progressive argumentation. I do not believe that I have the sufficient ability to evaluate progressive argumentation to a high extent.

Speaker Points:

30: All Turns in Constructive

30: Turning in Chair when Reading a Turn

30: Referencing the Seattle Seahawks or anything related with cricket.

30: Referencing Kanye West, Juice Wrld, Playboi Carti, or Lil Tecca in speech. (Send song recommendations too).

Some of the debaters that have shaped my view of debate are Vedant Misra, Marcus Novak, Anmol Malviya, Ryan Jiang, and William Hong. Read any of their paradigms if you have any questions or preferences related to substance.

I know this was pretty short and doesn't talk about my views about a lot of things, so feel free to email before the round to see my views. You can also ask me in room.

Samuel Stein Hire None

Hanming Sun Hire

Ryder Tang Hire

Jack Vail Hire

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 9:50 AM EDT

I’m Jack (he/him), a 4th year pfer at Durham Academy (class of '24)

General Stuff:

My email is 24vail@da.org for email chains or questions.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misgender anyone, etc. It’s an L and minimum speaks for anyone who is discriminatory.

If we’re in round early feel free to talk/ask questions. Same with postrounding, I’ll always answer questions about my decision (time permitting) but the ballot won’t get changed.

Speed <250wpm is probably fine but if you plan to go that fast send a speech doc. I will not flow off a doc so I have to be able to understand you. The more I can clearly hear and process what you're saying the more likely I am to vote on it. I will clear you.

Time yourself and your opponents for prep and speeches, I usually do too but might forget.

Substance:

I'll vote on any topical argument, but that doesn’t mean you can’t warrant (the less true the argument, the lower my threshold for a response).

Extend the whole argument (with warranting) for me to vote on it in both backhalf speeches. This is non-negotiable. I don’t usually flow evidence names so explain what your evidence says in the extension.

You should collapse by summary, please don’t make all our lives difficult by going for all your case arguments and four turns, just pick a few things you’re winning and win them.

When I vote I look to weighing first and then whoever best links, so do good weighing and meta-weigh (tell me why your weighing is better than theirs). I will not vote for an argument with 0 risk just because you win weighing however.

I listen to cross but bring up important points in your next speech. Let your opponents speak and don’t lie.

Evidence:

I won't vote on misconstrued evidence that is either called out or that I read myself (note: misconstrued evidence is different from bad evidence).

If something violates NSDA evidence rules I’d rather you challenge it than read an IVI or shell about it.

Please be able to share evidence quickly, it's really annoying to sit around and wait for someone to find/send a single piece of evidence. Similarly, please only ask for evidence you need and don't call for excessive evidence to get extra prep or throw off your opponents. It makes it easier to just send docs before speeches but I don't require that.

If evidence is important to my decision I’ll call for it, otherwise I probably won’t unless you tell me to.

Theory/Ks:

I’m definitely not the best judge for these rounds, I have some experience with both but not a lot and am not particularly familiar with critical literature. I can flow these arguments but will make no guarantees about my ability to evaluate them correctly, so if you go for them make sure to explain everything really well and slow down. The more complex, the slower and more explained everything should be.

If you don't understand the argument/can't make me and your opponents understand it by final focus, I won't vote for it. If you're reading a K I expect you to understand your literature/arguments very well and you should be able to convey that understanding to myself and your opponents.

You should have really good norms if you read theory.

Interps should be read in the next speech after the violation.

For theory I have no strong preference for yes/no rvis or counterinterps/reasonability. I default text over spirit and that will be hard to change.

I don't have a strict rule about when to/not to read these arguments, but I don't think anyone gets anything out of a round where a newer team is just shelled with progressive arguments and will be receptive to arguments about that.

I won't vote for tricks or theory I think is frivolous.

Speaks:

My speaks will probably be higher than other judges. I reward good debating (strategy, partner cohesion, etc.) and don’t particularly care about presentation (sitting vs. standing, eye contact, fluency, etc).

I like humor and won’t tolerate rudeness towards your partner or your opponents.

Random Thoughts:

2nd rebuttal should at least frontline what you plan to collapse on and turns, anything not covered is conceded.

Defense isn't sticky, you have to extend everything you want in your final through summary.

There shouldn’t be anything new in final focus.

I will not evaluate any arguments made in round from AI.

I would rather start early.

If you use a beeping timer hold yourself to the same standard as your opponents and let it beep at the end of your speeches as well.

Vivek Yarlagedda Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 5:54 PM CDT

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.

Chetan Yenigalla Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:33 AM CDT

Varsity PF Debater at Ravenwood High School in Brentwood, TN. I have competed on the THSSDL and national circuit under Ravenwood YH, HY, YS, YM, KY, and Y.

Tech > Truth.

General:

1. Add me to all Email Chains: chetan.yenigalla@gmail.com

2. If you show any "-ist" characteristics, expect an L and the lowest speaker points possible (And maybe a report to your school or the tournament director). Debate is and always should be respectful of all those present.

3. I will stop flowing if you go more than 5 seconds over time in any speech.

4. I don't care about paraphrasing evidence, as long as there is no misconstrual.

5. Post-Round me as hard as you want. You should always understand why you won/lost.

6. I default NEG for policy topics, and I default the 1st-Speaking Team for Fact Topics (dont make me default)

Case:

Read what you want (Just don't be ridiculous).

Rebuttal:

If you read turns, implicate AND weigh them. If you don't, it's just awkward defense.

Second Rebuttal: Everything must be front-lined here. Concede/collapse what you want. If you catch your opponent not front-lining an argument they go for, point it out in the next speech.

Summary:

Collapse if you have not already. Extend ALL links, warrants, and impact(s) on the argument you go far. If it isn't extended, it's out of my flow.

New responses are fine in 1st summary. Nothing new in 2nd summary. (If it's new in the 2nd Summary, it isn't being flowed).

WEIGH. If both teams do not weigh, I'll choose a weighing mechanism based on my mood. Weighing is good and Meta-weighing is even better. If both teams have unrefuted weighing but neither team meta-weighs, I will default to prerequisites --> link-ins --> severity --> scope --> timeframe --> probability IN THAT ORDER.

Final Focus:

Must mirror the Summary. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE.

Crossfire:

I will listen, but I won't vote on anything in crossfire unless it is extended in the next speech and beyond.

Don't be condescending, but sarcasm/humor is cool.

Progressive Debate:

Run it at your own risk.

If you take advantage of small schools, then the threshold for responses will be very low (along with your speaker points).

I have minimal experience with theory (disclosure and paraphrase), and no experience with Ks, Tricks, etc. If you run it, it better be warranted.

Login to Tabroom

DebateHacks Season Opener

2022 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges