Cypress Freeze TFA Swing at Jersey Village
2022 — Jersey Village, TX/US
PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
As a former debater, I am qualified and will give feedback not only on your speech but also in ways you can improve your case. Be sure that you offer well developed arguments that show that you understand the topic, as well as your case. In debate, it is important to make sure that you have enough evidence to back up your theories, but also enough commentary to tie everything back to the case as a whole. Make sure your case is not just a bunch of cards after another, I want to know why and how things relate.
Framework and your speeches are extremely important. Your framework should have relevance and be upheld throughout all aspects of your case. If you can prove to my why your framework is stronger than your opponents, this will give you an advantage on the ballot. Not only that, but your speech should be convincing and not unclear. Speed is fine, but make sure that your value and criteria, warrants, authors, or anything you want me to remember is understandable.
To win my vote on the ballot, you must do the following things. You must clash with your opponent. Do not spend all your speeches telling me why your case is the best and should win. You must tell me why your opponents case falls. Make sure that you clash. If you don't, it's no longer debate. It becomes two students public speaking. It is important to clash on framework. Your contentions may fall but convince me that your value/criteria is more important and should be upheld over your opponents. I value framework over evidence. Impact is also an extremely important factor of the ballot. Make sure you are kind and respectful throughout the round. Good luck!
Hey! I’m Simon (I also go by Amber) - email@example.com
Add me on speech docs & email chains :/
A little about me:
I did Public Forum in High school from 2018-2022 for strake, qualifying to TOC, State, and Nationals three times each and clearing at all three sometime or another while winning a few national tournaments along the way.
Before we continue: I recommend you read through the bolded stuff or there is an immensely high likelihood that neither of us will enjoy the outcome of this round :/
I’m very tech, but I’m also not afraid of debaters who are willing to experiment with the flow.
Go literally as fast as you want. I can only handle about 350 wpm without faltering or missing stuff tho without a speech doc (which you should send).
A few misc things that people always get confused about in front of me: Quality > Quantity (Don’t make me get out more than 5 sheets pls), I LOVE TURNS + I’ll boost your speaks if you go for them, Counterinterps > RVIs, I have a low bar for perm acceptance but a high bar in extending them, Sticky defense is fake, and DA dumping is lame + loses speaks.
I won’t do any work for you – and I refuse to intervene with a few exceptions listed below. This also means I will not change my standards for extensions and frontlines in the case that the round gets flooded by a 10 sheet dam break.
I’m very pessimistic about the way PF is going – which is straight into a dumpster fire for norms. Thus, those of you who read progressive arguments will have a speaks floor of 28.5 (unless its bigoted in nature). Keep in mind I give a 26-ish on average.
I will evaluate literally anything progressive that occurs in front of me.
I pref first unless told otherwise.
Prefs/Strikes Info: [Scaled 1-Best -> 5-Worst]
Ask questions if you need to, but for PF I’m confident I can eval just about anything.
Always send speech docs.
Non-T Ks : 1 – This is what I read in high-school. I’m pretty up to date abt most non-T lit and I’m good at evaluating it. Be clear and you’ll be fine. On a side note do not read an Identity K if you don’t identify with the group - If you do that I bump this down to a 4. For interesting Non-T Ks, i.e., not basic identity Lit, go for it I love these but send speech docs. Also, pls don’t invalidate people’s identities when responding to or reading these – I’ll obliterate your speaks and won't eval. When responding please also tailor your basic identity K responses to the K itself or my bar for responses can literally be "they read off backfiles - kick the responses bc they generalize and marginalize identity".
Reps Ks: 1 - If it’s warranted this may be above a one. Even if it’s like a reps K against debating economics I’m chilling with it though. Keep it simple and don’t try to overcomplicate it. Please make sure not just to win the rep itself but why reps are a voting issue.
Topical Ks: 2 - Most topical links are pretty boring to me but so long as you have a coherent alt and rotb you’ll be fine. If it’s a weird alt explain it and you’ll be okay - I feel like most topical Ks end up being really badly warranted – especially in terms of how the alt solves – so just make sure the alt is well warranted.
Theory: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling and I’ll probably have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 3. (I consider anything related to dates or other stuff like that friv). I read both warranted and friv theory in high school and I def have biases towards or against certain kinds of theory. If something related to personal violence occurs – you do not have to read a shell and an IVI will be just fine (Trust me I won’t slight you for it being an IVI). BTW I DEFAULT K>Theory - so weigh in the opposite direction if you need to.
IVIs: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling, and I’ll have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 4. If its abt personal violence, it’s above a 1. If someone reads an IVI pertaining to plagiarism or something of the sort, I’d really prefer it to be a shell and it gets bumped down to a 4.
Phil: 3 (Better be coherent and clear) - Please explain it correctly. PLEASE. Just bc you win the phil side doesn’t mean you win the application side. These debates get very muddled so explain your author right. Know that I’ve probably read at least some of their lit unless you’re reading someone obscure.
Soft-Left (Specialized Frameworks for Substance Debate [i.e. fem framing or neolib etc…]): 3 - These annoy me. Why not read a K? If you drop the framing then I default that the arg is strictly substantive. Also, most soft-left args get convoluted bc people can’t properly explain the warrants behind advocating for their framework – please explain it properly.
Counter-Plans/[Technically Plans]: 3 - Go for it. I love counter-plans but I’ve seen so many fail. Please debate these correctly and extend the whole structure & implicate how it interacts with the whole flow. This technically extends to plans too but be careful in how you break PF Plan rules bc I’m highly unlikely to vote on it unless you warrant it super well.
Perms: 3 - Please explain the perm vs. alt debate & please explain why I should eval the perm in the rotb. If you can’t or don’t, then don’t read the perm. I also have a super-high bar for extensions on Perms – i.e. don’t just read the tag. Generally, not an amazing idea - I’d much prefer a line-by-line or Counter rotb/K than your reading 3 or 4 perms and hoping the debate gets muddled.
RVIs: 3 - Please don’t just dump these. I’ll be annoyed but I’ll evaluate it. Also, my bar for responses is very very low and you have to weigh RVI > Shell.
Trix: 4 - Same as RVIs. Also, if they're funny and you go for them, I'll give you a 30. Multiple layers that are unrelated also make my head hurt so please don’t.
Word PICs: 4 - I feel like most word PICs are unwarranted and friv, which is why this is down here. For words that most definitely deserve to have the other team drop - this is a 1 – I’m not going to give any examples but yk which words. That being said please omit the word itself when you read the word PIC unless you are permitted to say it, If I have speech docs, I’ll know what you’re referring to.
New Forms of Debate: 4 - If it's good, I will give you 30s. If it’s bad, I’ll be confused. Explain it well, Explain the structure well, and gl.
Topicality: 4 - I really (REALLY) hate T, but you can read it. Just don't be forcing on debating substance itself and instead explain the implications of the shell for norms instead of being all gung-ho about defending "the public in PF".
Pure Substance: 5 (I mean its normal debate - not that fun but I can judge it just fine)
A specific note on Fem Ks - Don’t read Terf lit. I’ll give you bottom speaks and if your opponents point out how its Terf lit my ballot writes itself. If I catch you reading statistics that specify debaters who are only of "the female sex" I will straight up drop the whole K on a perf-con - Ik this is intervention I do not care:) I DARE YOU TO READ STATS THAT ASSIGN GENDERS BASED ON NAMES.
Here are the cases I’ll intervene in the round:
You must read content warnings – for my and your opponent’s sakes. [I won’t down you for not doing it (unless the ops. read a shell) but I promise that I won’t pay attention to the technicalities of the argument and I’ll drop your speaks]
You must use the pronouns your opponent’s specify.
You must use the name your opponent’s specify.
(If you don't know - just ask. I'm not going to care abt responses like "I didn't know" if they read an IVI or a shell)
Don’t be a bigot.
Don’t put someone else’s safety in jeopardy.
If any of these occur, I won’t hesitate to vote on them.
Post-round me if you want.
I am the Director of Interp and Oratory/Assistant Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I did speech in high school in Texas, and I am also a thespian -- I have a BFA in acting and I was a theatre director prior to specializing in Speech and Debate.
Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Wimberley (TX)
First and foremost, I am a theatre person and a speech coach by training and by trade.
Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.
I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to really connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, environment should be clear and blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this with in the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you really connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to character, and share that with the audience.
Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, it is important that your content is accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.
I try to flow, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.
Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.
- Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.
I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.
Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.
If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.
Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.
context: As a new parent judge, I'm still learning multiple aspects of Speech and Debate. Consider me extremelylay.
YOU must be respectful of others in your room, don't be nervous, stand confidently and give your speech to the best of your ability; it can get nerve-racking at the front of the room. Just know I'm judging you for all the good things you do, not the wrong things
Speed- I'm not too fond of speed. Nothing faster than 165wpm at most. A conversational pace is preferred.
Kritik/Theory/Disads/Add-ons/Framework- I don't debate, nor have I ever done debate. I won't be able to evaluate these arguments, soDON'Tmake them.
How to get my vote- Tell me WHY I should vote for you. Please don't assume that I will grasp any argument made; I won't, so explain them; I evaluate everything from primary content to cross-fire to presentation. I enjoy it when the debater is persuasive and can stay calm and collected. Of course, debate to the best of your ability, stand confidently and do your best.
Cross Fire-Be kind to each other; I will be accounting for crossfire during my ballot.
Speaker Points-I will give points if you follow the other aspects mentioned. I don't want a rude or condescending tone, BE RESPECTFUL to everyone in the round, whether that's a spectator or your opponent. Don't say anything racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic I will down you and give you the worst speaker points I can give. Debate well and be confident. Explain everything, and you will get better points.
If you have any questions that aren't answered, please let me know!
Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.
I am hard of hearing
I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.
How I evaluate debate.
Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.
If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.
Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.
I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.
If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.
I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)
These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.
1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.
The Respect Amendment
This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.
I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…
1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.
Hello, my name is Ray Chacko.
I believe how we say is as important as to what we say. Teams, during debates, ignore the fact that their facial expression, tone and respect for the rules are delivering a subtle message about the team. They may have empirical arguments with supporting evidence but I believe in order to create a solid impression on the judge, each team member needs to adhere to the ground rules of respect, display a pleasant demeanor and be willing to express their opinion without argument or insults. I believe they also should take criticism of the opponents creatively and be willing to adjust the tone/message accordingly.
PF: Focus on framework building + topicality (aff) and examining exclusivity + counterplan burden (neg). Weighing on impacts, uniqueness of cons, and magnitude. Speak clearly, slow to medium fast, do not spread. Signpost as you go through your case. Crossfire should be prepared and effective at asking/answering clarifying and combative questions.
LD/CX: Tablua Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.
WSD: Content, style, strategy. Content on prepared motions should be a given and of high priority. Less so on impromptu (but never unimportant). Tend to put heavier weight toward strategy: For example, if prop mentions a solution but does not fully address/explain and that it is a potential argument that works in opps favor, does that mean prop side made a mistake, or is that a tactic to further that particular argument opp addresses in order to show prop was aware and prepared for opp taking the bait? This would be an example or steering the debate using hidden counterplans or subtext to "force the hand" of the other team.
While reply speech is important, it is helpful to be more than just summative. Ask the audience to think more about the world you have created vs the world the other team has created. Ensure the judge leaves with a strong sense you are right/better/more efficient/inclusive/utilitarian/ethical/whatever, and give the reason why.
I value debate that is germane to the topic. Loosely connected theory shells or using "trick" debate strategies hold less value than those in which are directly relevant to the topic. I am looking for well researched and well delivered debate.
Spreading is frowned upon. In my opinion spreading ruins the spirit of debate. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth you are not debating, you are mumbling. Preference will be given to the debater that is speaking clearly, and making their points with fluidly.
Be respectful to me and your opponents at all times.
As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.
I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them
Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.
That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.
For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).
I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest
for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege
Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)
If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech
Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required
Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.
That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it
Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K
Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear
Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF
At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not
I've done PF for two years. That's it.
If you don’t extend it in summary I won’t count it for final focus. Weigh.
-tech > truth
-you have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal
-I can't flow spreading
Don't be a jerk.
add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
- Provide a content warning if necessary
- I can't evaluate Ks / theory very tech so run at your own risk
- I presume first speaking team
- speech docs and cut cards are a good norm
- I don't flow cross -- feel free to do open cross, take flex prep, or skip gcx if everyones cool w it
- Second rebuttal must frontline
- Defense is not sticky
- Extend your full argument in summary and final focus or I'll drop it
- warrants and implications matter a lot to me
- speaks are dumb, i usually give decent speaks
- If you're rude in cross, your speaks will drop. Be respectful. It's not that hard.
- If you spread, provide a speech doc, be clear, and ask if your opponent is comfortable with it. If they aren't, slow down. (I can't keep up w policy/LD spreading, but im ok w/ PF "spreading")
- +speaks if you make a joke in round
1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round.
2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast. While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.
3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument. Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible.
4. Additional items.
a. When sharing or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this.
b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.
I debated pf for 5 years on the TFA circuit, went to state and nationals.
-I evaluate arguments on the flow
-first summary doesn't need to extend defense. Unless the defense is frontlined in the second rebuttal, then you don't have to extend / frontline it until your final focus.
-Extend is a verb-saying the word "extend" is the best way to make sure i evaluate a piece of evidence at the end of the round. When extending don't just say the tagline, extend the warrant and the impact.
-I don't take notes during cross, if something important happens in the cross bring it up in your speech.
-I will say speed if you are going too fast but I will not say clear, that is your responsibility. I dont mind if you spread I can usually understand it and appreciate the strategy.
-I will evaluate "progressive" arguments ie. kritiks, plans, PIC if its done well and warranted.
-I evaluate link weighing before impact weighing and any weighing before no weighing at all.
he/him || yes email chain, look at logistics section below
I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.
I've been competing, judging, and coaching in multiple formats of speech and debate since 2014.
Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.
The round should begin by the start time. Please get ready to debate before I arrive and get to round early.
If you plan on reading evidence, set up an email chain. Please add email@example.com to the email chain. Additionally, please add firstname.lastname@example.org to the email chain if I am judging PF, email@example.com if I am judging LD, or firstname.lastname@example.org if I am judging Policy.
The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes + sides of each team. Ex: "Emory R1A - Seven Lakes LM 1A v Lakeville South GN 2N"
You should ethically cut evidence, send speech documents to your opponents before or immediately after your speech, and disclose the case positions you read after rounds.
How I decide rounds/preferences:
I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. But, I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.
I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. But, as a judge, I prefer that you demonstrate that you have done a lot of topical research and preparation, and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents.
My ideal round is a rigorous examination of the most recent topic literature with lots of evidence-based weighing. I want to hear warrants. I want to hear examples. I want to hear you compare warrants and examples. Ignoring this preference will probably result in lower speaker points.
I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. There is no grace period of any length.
I will decide the debate based on the arguments I've flowed (not read from a document). I have no strong preference on what those arguments are, provided they have been well-researched and are grounded in some topic literature.
I will vote for the argument that has the strongest link to the most significant impact. That does mean that I will vote for arguments that I truthfully believe are dumb. But, an argument's truth dictates how easy it will be to persuade me that the argument justifies my decision. I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time."
Zero risk exists. Practically, I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.
I generally give lower speaker points than average. I average a 28.4. I'm trying to align with community expectations, but I am not easily impressed.
I am an ok judge (better in PF, worse in LD/CX) for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed.
I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, I probably think that relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.
I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.
This section is too long, but I can't cut it down any more than it already is. Theory is generally boring and I don't really want to listen to it unless it's placed in a specific resolutional context. The rest of this section is mostly me being annoyed at national circuit PF.
In general: the less likely it is that you could read your position on any given topic, the more likely I will enjoy judging it. That doesn't mean I won't vote for it - but I will be in pain for the duration of the round.
I'm fine submitting a ballot on an ethical question - i.e., your opponent is legitimately misrepresenting evidence or otherwise egregiously cheating. These arguments stop the round with the losing team of the ethics challenge getting the lowest speaker points possible (generally 25s).
If the outcome of the challenge is murky or otherwise difficult for me to decide, I will presume good faith by everyone in the round, which generally means that I presume against ethics challenges. Ethics challenges must be immediately introduced after discovered for me to consider them. I've noticed that the people going for "evidence ethics IVIs" in PF tend to be the same people that are more likely to misrepresent evidence, mis-disclose, refuse to send cards before their speeches, etc. Represent evidence ethically, assume that others will as well, and be prepared to defend your own evidentiary practices in-round.
I'm fine voting for procedural arguments that deal with what is/is not topical or what each side should/should not have to specify - e.g., aspec, topicality - if supported by evidence and/or carded definitions which delineate each side's ground. I would prefer these positions be grounded in some analysis of the resolutional context -- i.e., for this particular topic, teams/debaters should do x -- rather than generic shells that can be recycled.
I'd strongly prefer to not hear debates about "setting norms". Disclosing arguments is generally good, and despite the circuit's inclinations, I'm not sold on open-source being more educational. Paraphrasing evidence/"clipping" in PF is generally bad. I am qualified to evaluate these debates. Despite what you may know about my opinions, I will not hack for disclosure or paraphrasing theory. Most theory positions seem to me solved by being reasonable. Initiating these discussions will probably get you low speaker points absent verifiably proven in-round abuse - i.e., your violation should be more than "they paraphrased," instead it should be "this specific piece of evidence is paraphrased and misconstrued."
Frivolous theory -- defined as theory with no bearing on the resolutional question -- is stupid, will annoy me, and earn you low speaker points. My bar for teams answering these arguments is extremely low, and any formulation of "this does not matter" is likely to be very persuasive. Travel at your own risk.
I will almost certainly not vote on any formulation of trigger warning/content warning theory, except in cases where the content is objectively and unnecessarily graphic or triggering. I have yet to hear an argument in high school debate that I thought needed a content warning, though I am aware that there are a wide array of legitimate reasons one may prefer one. Please be reasonable and kind to each other.
I am also terrible for strategies which primarily win by avoiding clash or debate, asinine appeals to formal "logic", stupid definitions of words, or other "arguments" categorized as "tricks". If your ideal RFD in my round is some version of "I vote x because y is conceded and I have no choice but to vote x", I am a bad judge for you.
The more obvious it is that you are initiating theory to try to get an easy win or TKO, the lower your speaker points will be for initiating theory. I have no problem handing out (very) low point wins.
IVIs (independent voting issues, defined as arguments around conduct or language of students in-round that ought to be rejected) are objectively horrific. Saying something is an IVI does not automatically catapult it to the highest layer of the debate - if it did, every card or argument in every speech should be an "IVI". If you feel legitimately unsafe or otherwise excluded from the round, please ask me to stop the debate and contact tab and your coach for guidance on how to proceed. Be aware that this may result in you receiving a loss of the round or a forfeit. Otherwise, please continue debating. I would strongly prefer this to a "safety IVI" or something similar.
I am a stock issues judge. I believe that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens. If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. As a stock issue judge, I generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.