LC Anderson 22

UT Austin 26 - Westlake debate consultant

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

ld: Tech > Truth

Policy---Best for this. cp debates are fine to an extent, but best to evaluate substance.

Theory---Would prefer if the brightline for abuse was in–round. Out of round violations are generally unverifiable, putting me as a judge in an awkward position trying to evaluate a squabble between two debaters, but otherwise good.

Tricks---probs don't read that in front of me.

K’s---minimal knowledge. there's a chance i won’t know the literature base you are reading, but I can flow plus comprehend pretty well. Make sure that the 2NR/2AR slows down, does impact calculus and weighs between their offense and your offense. I will try my best to adjudicate and have no predisposed biases’ towards any critical argumentation, but can't guarantee a perfect eval.

phil - have read some bc of college but that being said you need to fill in the blanks for me big time

Other things:

Presumption is negative unless the 1NC introduces a counter advocacy to the 1AC, then it flips affirmative.

Competing Interps----X---------------------------Reasonability

Judgekick----------------X----Debaters Kicking

Infinite Condo----------X-----------No Condo

if you have a question about any of these ask me before round!

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, love a line by line, defense is not sticky, extend it in every speech if you want it evaluated; for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of a cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round - for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

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

Tech>truth. I can evaluate a flow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, my pronouns are he/him.

I'm a parent judge and have previous experience with judging at debate.

I'm open to any arguments as long as you can explain them clearly.

Please try to go slow and refrain from spreading.

You may contact me for any questions: beskok@gmail.com

I did PF for 4 years (grad '22)

For email chain: morganmb22@gmail.com (send docs please if going really fast)

General PF Substance Stuff

• Tech>Truth, I evaluate the flow
• Assume I don't know anything about the topic
• Pre-flow before round
• Quality > Quantity of arguments / responses
• Everything you want to go for must be mentioned in summary (defense not sticky)
• The latest a new argument can be read is first summary
• Have the cut cards available for any pieces of evidence you mention
• 2nd Rebuttal has to frontline
• Collapse + extend warrants not just card names
• Okay with speed (no spreading) but make sure to send docs over before speaking if you are planning to go faster.
• (impact lvl) weighing is important but remember that you need a link into your impact for it to matter
• Cross is for questions, not arguing. As in, I'm not using cross to judge (with the exception of obvious concessions) so you don't need to counter something your opponent says if you don't agree, just move on w/o conceding anything unless you actually want to keep talking about it.
• Comparative weighing + link lvl warranting please
• I'm judging based on the flow so be clear about where you are on it
• I won't look at evidence unless it becomes a major problem in round / someone asks me to look at it
• Goes without saying but don't run offensive arguments
• Read TW w/ opt outs please (if argument is explicit)
• Be nice/ respectful to your opponents during round, your speaks will reflect your actions
• Wear what you want in round

Theory:

• Extend shell in summary and final focus
• Don't run theory on people who obviously don't know what it is / are unfamiliar with it just to win
• Paraphrasing (substance specifically): honestly no bias here, if it comes down to a paraphrasing debate I'm going to vote for whoever makes more sense
• If you are planning to run multiple offs just to win in prelim rounds that matter / elim rounds, I won't evaluate in a way you like
• I default to competing interps/ No RVI's/ drop the debater unless argued otherwise
• Must read shell right after the violation
• Okay w/ frivolous theory (again, your opponents must be familiar with theory tho + must be in prelims where breaking is not an option)

K's:

• I'm okayish with K's but run at your own risk (I ran a few topic specific cap K's but keep in mind this was in PF and I am overall not super knowledgeable about these type of arguments + perfectly evaluating them)
• I'm probably not familiar with the K you are running so you will need to SLOW DOWN and explain more (I'm not voting for it if I can't understand it)
• Like normal, extend everything you want me to evaluate from 1st summary on
• Don't paraphrase K's
• Weighing is VERY important here, honestly more-so than it is for substance just because you are often talking about out-of-round impacts

Feel free to ask me any questions both before and after round

General Shi:
1) I am tab

2) Extend everything and frontline damning offense.

3) I evaluate and appreciate frameworks

4) I am 50 50 on sticky defense depending on the argument made

5) If your gonna go fast, send speech doc ( I don't care about the cut cards on there if u don't ready any).

6) I do TKO's.

7) If you are getting nuked in a round, and would like to end the round early, you can forfeit the round (prior to grand cross) and I'll give you the L but give you double 30's.

8) Tag Team CX is allowed, I think it's a good thing.

Weighing:
1) Make sure I get COMPARATIVE weighing and you do the work for me. I will not intervene
2) Warrant your weighing (aka. tell me why your high probability impact matters more than the opponents' scope weighing)

Speaks Boost Stuff:
1) Speak clearly, especially since we are online. I will add a speaker point if you have Brent Faiyaz or Drake playing in the background during the constructive
2) You can say whatever (aka. accidentally cussing). I won't really care unless its explicitly racist, ableist, homophobic, etc.
3) If the debate round is legit interesting -- auto 30s for both sides

Evidence

I'll never call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and nobody called it out. I think that's stupid and interventionist. I'll even evaluate evidence I literally know you wrote, if you're not called out on it. I don't care. I have a low threshold, however, for BS evidence if it's called out.

Theory Stuff

1) I think I am the wrong type of judge to read incredibly phil-rooted arguments or otherwise hyper-technical arguments that would be considered wildly outside of the realm of PF. This is not to say that you can't read theory, framing arguments or other technical arguments adapted to PF, but please be cognizant of this if you pick up my ballot, and explain your collapse better.
2) Make it interesting

I did 4 years of high school debate and 4 years of speech (extemp and informative speaking) back in the mid 80s.

Anderson 21' PF for 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice

Top shelf:

Tabula Rasa

Debate is a game

K's, T, disads, theory, tricks (tricks must be in the doc if you're sending one), and any progressive args are fair ways to play

I endorse good norms...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them

default competing interps (unless you read reasonability warrants)

speed is fine

If you're going to spread incoherently through anything off a doc in the back half (pre-written extensions, prep-outs, literally anything)...send it to me

feel free to post-round me until you understand my decision

will.erard@gmail.com

For readers:

I flow real good so follow the rules

No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read new framing in final

Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped

If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore

You should frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary

I don't listen closely to cross so bring up concessions in speech

I give speaks based on in round strategy and technical prowess

FOR LD

tech pf judge

larp: very comfortable with larp, I won't mess it up I promise

theory: debated a lot of disclosure and paraphrasing in my day, I probably won't mess it up

T: T is cool

Ks: familiar with the structure but not with all the lit, go easy on me

fine with spreading

ask specific questions if you have them

4 years PF experience

For PF:

Anything on the ballot should be in Final Focus.

I consider myself to be a pretty technical judge. It is helpful when debaters go for fewer arguments and give clear link stories. My preference is that the second rebuttal responds to the first rebuttal and that new arguments are not brought up after first summary. CX is for the debaters, but it can be used as an opportunity to bolster speaker points. Paraphrase evidence is fine as long as it is not misconstrued. I will call for the evidence if you ask me to.

Feel free to talk to before round if you have questions.

UT '26

I did high school debate for 4 years and have both local & nat circuit experience. I did pf for 2 years and qualified to TFA both times. I consider myself a pf judge.

• Include me in the email chain (knayeon117@gmail.com)

• I won't flow responses that are incoherent. Some of you spread so much to a degree where I literally can't understand anything you say and then send a 20 page speech doc during first cross and expect me to follow along. Know that I will look at speech docs only to look at certain cards and get clarification on parts of your argument but what I won't be doing is use it to write down your entire speech for you. Note that spreading 10 arguments that I can't flow is the equivalent of reading nothing at all. PLEASE don't be like "oh the spreading was analytical" and give me a 5 sentence mark doc that just are just abbreviations of the taglines you read. PLEASE don't spread through frontlining and then proceed to read 9 off in 2nd rebuttal. I think you get the gist of what I'm saying. I will almost certainly vote you down if you ignore this and choose to do the exact opposite of what I said, purely because I quite literally can't understand anything you're saying.

• If you read too fast, will say "clear" two times before I stop flowing

• I used to be considered tech > truth when I debated but now that people are starting to run ld/cx level progressive arguments on both the local & national circuit, I think I am probably what you would call a "flay judge". I won't vote you down automatically just because you ran a progressive argument, but keep in mind that these are not the types of argument that I am familiar with and might evaluate it completely differently than the way you expect me to. Like for example, you will lose me if you start talking about RVIs, reverse RVIs, reasonability vs competing interps, or these intricate details about theory debate that I will most likely have no idea what to do with.

• I would strongly advise you to not run progressive arguments because I lack the depth of knowledge that would be required of me to actually consider this in a 'flow' way. If you have to, don't spread, don't be mad if the way that I understood your argument was starkly different from what you believe it was, and at least try to dumb it down to a pf level.

• On theory: I was never a fan of theory, honestly I'm confused even to this day how it actually works, unless there is a blatant in round abuse that justifies dropping the debater it won't be a significant voting issue for me. Meaning, reading topicality ts, disclosure ts, or just any type of 'frivolous' theory is probably a waste of time that garners you almost no benefit.
• On kritiques: I am a bit more familiar with kritiques than other types of progressive arguments, because I do enjoy critical literature, but again there is a risk of losing me if you start throwing around technical buzz words without actually putting in the effort to explain what they are and how you uphold the rotb.
• On counterplans: you can't run counterplans in PF because there is no aff 'plan'. Please don't complicate the fiat debate unnecessarily by claiming you can run shenanigans such as PICs in PF. I won't buy it.

• 2nd rebuttal is too late to read an overview/framework of any sort: the round is already too crystalized for you to tell me what I should prioritize first and foremost when signing the ballot and if you are going to run framework, you should be willing to sacrifice your speech time to expand upon it- aka take the risk of going first. Utilitarianism is the default weighing in round unless you tell me otherwise.

• I don't vote off of cross unless it is completely mind blowing. Most of the times, I won't be paying attention to it. If you want to bring up something from cross in your later speeches, shout "Judge, this is important" or something along those lines during cross so that I can note it down. Don't turn cross into a shouting match and don't be rude.

• Don’t extend your own case in both rebuttals and in 2nd rebuttal you HAVE to frontline or you’ll automatically lose the round. Reextending cards in case isn’t frontlining.

• Defense isn’t sticky

• Whatever goes conceded in summary can’t be brought up in final focus and in summary go beyond just reiterating what went on in rebuttal and be interactive with your opponents’ argument.

• In final focus, the round should be narrowed down to 1 or 2 voters and I honestly don’t like it when you overcomplicate things by trying to go for multiple things when you can just focus on one voter and extend it really thoroughly. A good final focus should mirror summary and quite literally tell the judge how to write their ballot.

• Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, discriminatory, or derogatory in any manner. That would result in a 25L. If you're going to run an identity based argument(especially afropessimism, orientalism, LGBTQ+ literature, etc) don't do it unless you're part of that community.

• If I hear you were discriminatory or bigoted in any fashion at any point, in or outside of the round, you will immediately get tanked speaks for the rest of the season

• If you want good speaks just let me know in the round, I'm totally fine with giving everyone 30s if all of the debaters agree.

• Please weigh. If you and your opponents both do everything right and I'm left with two valid arguments that say the opposite, it is quite literally impossible for me to determine who the winner is without intervening. Tell me why your evidence or logic is better than your opponent's.

WSD Paradigm

• yall pls don't sound like this ;) https://youtu.be/tj7n9Cnbmu8?si=pCJCPt634i-zjD8s&t=76
• if you're going to introduce framing, overviews, burdens, world comparisons, definitions, observations, etc, do it in the first speech. After that it is too late.
• third sub is optional but must be done in second speech
• what doesn't get brought up in a speech cannot be extended in the subsequent speeches
• past the second speech don't introduce new arguments
• don't drastically change your back half round strategy, i.e., make an entirely new analysis in your final speech that i have never heard of until then
• don't extend through ink; repeating the same exact argument each speech without actually responding to what your opponents said isn't extending
• please weigh if you don't want me to judge intervene
• i will put my foot down: any type of policy/progressive style argument belongs nowhere in a WSD round. The activity was specifically made so that people wouldn't have to debate these types of things. I am aware of the recent trend of ld becoming like cx, pf becoming like ld, and wsd becoming like pf, but that doesn't mean you have to exacerbate the rate at which it is happening
• the bigotry/discrimination warning I put in my pf paradigm also applies here.

did pf @ westlake

tech>truth

please:

-weigh

-extend fully (uniqueness, link, impact)

-collapse

pointers:

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

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

If you have any questions ask before round

plz preflow & signpost

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

VBI Institute Assistan Director of PF (After the round, please feel free to ask about VBI! We would love to earn your attendance! I truly believe we offer an amazing and invaluable camp experience).

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

*UPDATED PF PARADIGM 2/3/25*- I have made some significant updates. This can be founder underneath my "general debate thoughts (pf/ld/policy/wsd)" section.

General debate thoughts (PF/LD/Policy/WSD)As cringe as it is to write, I view myself as a critic of argumentation. This means that any argument you make must be warranted. Absent a warrant your argument is not an argument and I will not flow it.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the rebuttals/Final focus, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 5 seconds of the final speech. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal/final focus, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last speech.

Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

Public Forum:

TLDR: Tech through truth, and truth through tech. I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I will not evaluate non-topical/reject the topic kritiks. I will evaluate kritiks that have a strong link to the topic/aff IFthey begin in 2nd constructive. Not earlier/later. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine. Last but not least.BE NICE.I have, and will continue to, drop teams for being unnecesarily rude, arrogant, or hostile. Passionate crossfire is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): At this point it's either Util or Structural violence which is fine. If you are going to read a framing argument use it. If both sides are reading the same framework be comparative. I find link ins to framing to be persuasive when well explained. If both sides have a different framework tell me why to prefer yours, or link in, or both. Going for magnitude meta-weighing and structural violence is kind of strange absent good warranting. "Frameworks" that are really just tricks/truth-testing are annoying. I will have a VERY low threshold for your opponents to respond if I suss out you're being sketch with your framing arguments.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: Tread carefully all ye who enter here.Disclosure and round reports theory are going to be an auto L-25 unless your opponent is reading some way off the wall argument that is not germane to the topic. In general the more "progressive" the argument the more willing I am to evaluate theory. Any attempts to read theory as a cheap shot victory will mean you get dropped. Reading theory args to "keep PF public" are persuasive to me. So spreading theory is not the worst if your opponents are going too fast. All of that being said theory debate is the debate I LEAST want to see. If a team reads theory against you, you should make it an RVI. It doesn't make sense in an event that is so short speech time wise that a team can read theory and not go for it, but as the team getting theory read on you, you need to make that argument.

Non-traditional stuff/Kritiks: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. Kritiks with a strong link to the topic are really underutilized in my opinion in PF. That being said if this is your strat I only want to see it when the kritik begins in the 2nd negative constructive.

After some less than savory experiences judging performative kritiks/kritiks that do not have a link to the topic I have to say they are a no-go for me. This event is just not there yet for these rounds to have any pedagogical value. I will not vote for blatant reject the topic kritiks in this event.

Argument rankings:

Substance-1

Topical Kritiks-1 (with the caveate that this be introduce in the 2nd negative constructive).

Theory-4

Non-topical kritks-5

Tricks- -10000000000000000000

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Policy:I have not judged much on the patents topic, I do not know the lingo, I do not know what is considered "topical" by the community. Start slower and work up to full speed.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Any other questions let me know!

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

Westwood 22

amoghdebatedocs@gmail.com

Debated PF for four years and coached for two.

I haven't been too involved in debate this year so I won't have any topic knowledge - I would err on the side of over explaining.

Please set up email chains BEFORE the round so we can start on time. Add me to the chain.

Send all the cards you read BEFORE your speech, I won't look at evidence that isn't in the email chain.

Evidence quality matters - if you have good evidence tell me (or if your opponents don't.) If go for topic specific strategies that display novel research I will reward you with speaks.

Read whatever you want - I won't vote on something I can't explain to the other team.

Be respectful.

If you have questions, email me and feel free to ask questions after the round too.

Public Forum:

The three things I prioritize are clarity, professionalism, and you helping me follow your arguments. Don't use sticky defense, don't bring up new arguments in summary and FF, and stick to questioning in CX. Please don't turn grand CX into a four-way shouting match; that's stressful for everyone.

Hello everyone! My name is KJ (he/him), I competed all 4 years of high school and now go to Texas State University.

I am primarily an IE person. I competed in every IE event including OO, Info, and Extemp. I as well competed in World Schools a bit too. I was a 4x state qualifier, state finalist, 5x state semi finalist, 2x NIETOC semifinalist, and a 3x NSDA qualifier. I was as well an All-State and All-American competitor with over 2200 NSDA points. What I am looking for is understanding of the piece. How well thought out it is and how much effort you have noticeably put into it goes a LONG way.

IE's

- Needs to be clean, concise, and have a deeper meaning as to why you're telling the story, interp is acting with a purpose

- Be proud of what you're performing! and have fun with it!

- Characterization is key, I want to see real peoples stories that I am actually able to connect to

- I want to know what's going on! Don't just throw us into the middle of everything, give us some exposition, who are you? Where are you? What is going on?

OO, Info, Extemp, WS

- Are you just telling me the facts? Or are you engaging with the information and the topic you've chosen and presenting it in an effective way?

- Charisma is KEY, you wrote this speech, be proud of it!

- How well thought out is your argument or topic?

- Are you speaking fluidly and confidently or are you using filler words and swaying nervously?

- Make sure that you're applying the facts that you give to the grand scheme of things, what are the implications?

Like I said earlier, I was always more of an interp person. However, I do know all of the rules and the ins and outs of debate! I may not be as adept as I am with speech but I know my way around. Essentially just treat me as a lay judge who knows a lot about the subject.

Debate

• Well thought out arguments will go a long way, the more you put into a speech the more you will get out of it, and trust me when I say that we as judges notice how much effort you put into it
• How well do you structure your speech? How well does it flow?
• How do you respond to questions and how do you interact in the round?
• Don't just tell me what you are going to do but also HOW you are going to accomplish it and WHY
• Add me to the email chain plz - kjamarino@gmail.com
• As far as flowing goes, I'm not a stickler for it during cross so don't worry about it
• I can follow spreading but if you'd like to have mercy on my soul and not that would be awesome
• I'm not a huge theory argument person, so if I feel you're twisting the resolution in a way that it most likely wasn't intended as may not work if its too far out there

All of these are just my personal opinions regarding judging, please do not change your speech or performance based on trying to get my 1. So long as you have fun, enjoy what you're doing, and you are proud of the work you've presented, that is all I ask.

Email: kjamarino@gmail.com

PF

**i want to emphasize that I was a pretty traditional PF/LD debater and my experience with theory/other progressive arguments was very limited. i won't evaluate any progressive arguments (including disclosure theory). for LD, treat me like a lay judge**

1. I vote on the flow, with that being said if it is not said, I can't vote on it. However, if both teams are not doing the work, I'll have to do it alone, and you might not like my decision.
2. Respond to everything if you are going for an argument. If you don't respond to it, it's conceded.
3. Whenever you extend a case you need to extend the entire link chain, not just the argument. This includes extending authors, warrants, and impacts.
4. Don't speak fast.

WSD

1. I use the basic 40% content, 40% style, and 20% strategy rubric for WSD. So, winning on the flow is not enough to get my ballot.

I debated at Saint Mary's Hall 8 years ago. Since then, I've been coaching and judging PF, LD, and some policy.

I'm currently a coach for Magnolia and Del Norte, and Director of PF at Victory Briefs.

I'm formerly the Director of Speech and Debate at Westlake HS and Corona del Sol.

cale@victorybriefs.com

SpeechDrop works too

General:

Read whatever you want, at whatever speed you want, provided you are clear. Debate is hard work, so I'll work hard to flow closely and give you a good decision, but absent clarity I can't do that. This means you should be explicitly line-by-lining arguments, slowing for tags/analytics, signposting, and making your doc organized. When I'm not confident in a decision, I can usually trace it back to one of the above elements.

I won't 'gut-check' or hand wave away your opponents' argument because you think it's silly or under warranted. Engage in the argument- if it's as frivolous as you're suggesting, doing so should be easy. I will, however, readily intervene if an argument being read is unsafe or morally repugnant.

Finally, be kind to each other. I am a teacher and would appreciate if you treated each other the same way you would in a classroom- that means all students should feel safe and respected in the round. This includes arguments that insert screenshots or other personal information about your opponent: save for disclosure arguments, this is not the place.

Counterplans: I will judge kick the CP. I am good for competition and process based counterplans, and while I won't hack for it, limitless condo is a strong default (less so in LD given speech times). Meaningful engagement in a competition debate is strongly preferred to a blippy cp theory claim or a wall of uncontextualized, 3 word perms.

Theory: Always send interps at a minimum, and meaningfully slow down for anything you extemp. Please also lbl your opponent's theory hedge- these debates are least tolerable when paradigm issues are being cross-applied on three different pages with minimal interaction. Also keep in mind I am not actively cutting positions in LD or Policy, so caselists on T aren't going to mean much to me.

Ks: Good for it, just get really lost when you're super overview heavy in the 2n. Do lbl work, and assume I'm not steeped in your literature. In general, the more clear and material your impacts and alternative are, the easier it will be for me to vote here.

Tricks: If the argument has a warrant, implication, and is delineated in the doc/in cross, I am open to voting for it. This means, for example, something like "I am the greatest conceivable being" I am not good for, but a fw trigger is fine.

Phil: Comfortable with Kant, Hobbes, Baudrillard, and other 'normal' LD stuff, but inexperienced beyond that. If it isn't a Kant 1ac, I would probably err against being too tricky.

PF: Extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. Come to round ready to debate (be 'pre-flowed' and have set up the email chain if you're using one).

Please don't spread, it makes it difficult to follow. I do not vote on theory. When judging, I focus more on impact but stock is also important. Please do not include me in the email chain. Speaker points are based on knowledge of the topic, eye contact, and speaking instead of just reading.

Hello!

I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.

Clements '22 | UT '26

4 years of PF, state and nats quals

put me on the chain: krastogi4444@gmail.com

TLDR: do what you want, have fun, be respectful. im pretty flow but I havent judged consistently in a couple months. paradigm updated Feb. 2025

Before/after round, feel free to respectfully ask me about UT or my debate experience or whatever. Do not do so DURING the round. big fan of sour candy and caffeine.

any form of bigotry is entirely unacceptable and will immediately result in an Loss, tanked speaks, and reporting to the director.

PF

Case

• pretty straightforward do what you want
• send ME case with cards before you speak, i dont care if/how/when y'all decide to share with opponents
• framing should be read here

Rebuttal

• anything not responded to here is considered conceded
• send ME docs, especially if you're spreading or reading new offs

Summary

• by far the most important speech
• if you haven't started weighing already, definitely start doing it now
• any voters in final must be in summary. if it's not here i dont care about it
• extensions are more than just "extend x card/author/arg" i need claim-uniqueness-warrant-link-impact
• defense is NOT sticky now that speeches are 3 minutes. that means defense must be re-extended in every speech that follows any offense

Final Focus

• like above, if its not in summary, i dont care if its in the final. if its in the final but wasn't in summary, i don't care
• mirror summary in both content and order
• weighing should have started earlier; the only new weighing i'll evaluate in FF is meta-weighing, which requires warranting as to why i should prefer one mech over another. it is NOT just yelling mechanisms at me

Extra

• cross is binding so long as you bring it up in a speech
• speed is fine as long as i have a doc. however, i will only flow if the speech is comprehensible; i will say clear once and if it doesn't get clearer i probably wont flow how you want.
• i will not look at any evidence unless i am explicitly told to do so. poor evidence ethics will hurt speaks but will not lose a round,unless that argument is made
• I am happy to evaluate progressive args but you have more experience with your own args than I do so keep in mind i may not evaluate it how you want me to
• be nice to novices, you can win in a dominant fashion without being rude and condescending.

WSD

• I try to appoint speaks as fairly as possible according to each category. However, if you are losing every argument, you will not win a round just because you had a better strategy. Thus, I will retroactively adjust points as necessary.
• the first speech should have definitions, framing, burdens, a worlds comparison, and the first two substantives. It's fine if you don't have each part, but you cannot bring them up in subsequent speeches (other than substantives)
• the second speech should respond to the first and introduce the third substantive. again, you don't need a third sub, but you can't bring it up any later
• each speech should progress argumentation. i dont want to be hearing the same things in the reply as i heard in the one.
• i have only seen a handful of teams actually weigh. it needs to start at the latest in the three. you need to do more than just tell me what your impact is; compare it to the opponents' and tell me why yours is better using some mechanism
• if you want me to vote on an argument, it needs to be in the 2, 3, and reply. if its missing inany of them, i will not evaluate it

• used to have a longer paradigm but it was deleted. feel free to ask if you have any questions

UPDATE FOR WSD @ TFA:

WSD didn't exist when I was in high school, but I judge it almost exclusively now including into deep elims of TFA State, UT, and Berkeley so my experience is not null.

Big things for me: I like clash, I want yall to answer the question, and I reward good on the spot analysis of your opponents argument, don't get so caught up in your case that your forget to answer your opponent's argument. Also I am fine with speed, but I don't think its necessary in worlds and honestly I prefer speech's that are stylistic and given like a PA. Please let me know if you have any questions and congrats on making it to state!

IE: I am pretty open to any stylistic choices or preparations of a speech/script, it is an Interpretation after all, so creative choices are welcome!

Extemp- You should have ample amount of evidence for the three main claims you decide to make. Please have your speech as structured as possible as it makes it easier for me to follow along and judge. It’s better for your speech to run 5 minutes, but be clear and conscie than for you to stay up there for seven minutes rambling on.

OO/INFO- There should be at least three sources in your speech. I don’t mind when you try and break the very formulaic structure of OO or info, but I should be able to easily follow along. I.E. you dont have to go “But first, then, finally” but hey whatver works for you, works for me, speak clear, be confident, and have fun up there.

HI- Use your space, HI is about physical humor as much as its about the jokes you are telling! Racist/misogynistic/Xenophobia etc humor is not funny. It’s not.

DI- Be careful with your content, DI’s are serious and I understand that, but be careful with how graphic you get. I am not a squimish judge so curse words dont bother me and mature material is fine, just try and be as tasteful as possible. And DONT mis-represent a character I.E. if you are playing a forty year old mom who just suffered the loss of her son, thats fine, but if you are speaking for an identity you cannot identify with, maybe not. DONT USE SLURS. Even for effect. It’s not needed. Use the space and be comfortable with silence. There is a lot of pauses and silence in DI and when its intentional l it works really well, so dont be afraid of it!

PR/PO- Don’t let your binder fall flat. I don’t think there is one right way to hold the binder, but there are a million wrong ways. It’s awesome when you find a way to incorporate the binder for techy stuff, but its def not necessary.

Lingering thoughts..

Your teaser should give me a clue about what your piece is about, (AND IT SHOULD BE MEMORIZED) it doesnt have to be a summary, but a couple of lines to let me know where the piece ie headed is great!

TIME. Be concious of it. Don’t run 10:29 or 10:30, once the fist is up WRAP IT UP.

If you forget your piece, take a moment to pause and collect your thoughts, try not to show it in your face and dont worry about it too much.

Be respectful to other performers, if you are on your phone, eating loudly, sleeping, or being distracting in anyway. I might factor it into your rank. It’s not cool, respect eachothers work.

- For Extemp:

1. Make to sure to include a humorous or captivating AGD in the intro.

2. Please, provide a blanket statement corresponding with your answer to the question. Ex. "Yes, because of...."

3. 3 points of elaboration to the answer are a must.

4. I provide 3-down time signals.

5. I have extensive background in DX and FX. Additionally, I am currently a public affairs graduate student. Inaccurate statements or misrepresented statistics will be reflected in your rank.

For Debate events:

1. Don't spread. Speak clearly. Spreading will ensure that at most, you'll receive 28.5 speaker points.

2. I judge based on the flow. With that being said, I evaluate impacts above all else. If you extend and cogently argue your biggest impacts, you'll likely win.

Background: I’m a third-year Journalism major at the University of Texas at Austin. I did 2 years of Congress and 2 years of PF at Vista Ridge High School.

PF

Argumentation

• 2nd rebuttal should be frontlining

• Extensions, extensions, extensions

• Weigh as early as you have time for and make sure that it’s comparative. I want clear warranting as to why I should vote for one impact over the other, not just name-dropping random weighing mechanisms

• I won’t vote on theory unless there’s an actual reasonable violation in round, so no disclosure, paraphrasing, etc

• I will vote for substance over any theory or progressive argument. Treat me like a lay judge when it comes to any progressive arguments

• It’s really up to you, but I prefer line-by-line in summary and voters in FF

• Definitely frame the round and WEIGH in summary

• I’m listening during cross but won’t vote on anything

Evidence/Speed

• Add me to the chain: raiyanshaik22@gmail.com

• Don’t just ask for multiple pieces of evidence for the purpose of prep

• I’m generally ok with speed as long as you’re speaking clearly, but if you’re going to spread send me a doc

• Be respectful. I will lower your speaks if you’re rude or excessively aggressive during CX

I will immediately vote you down if you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Congress

• Do not just give multiple sponsorship speeches in a row. After the first speech, your speeches should be interacting with the arguments before

• do not repeat arguments from prior speeches unless you're specifically adding something new to the conversation and acknowledging that you're doing so

• If you’re giving one of the last speeches of the round, crystallization is preferred

• Clear cited evidence

Hi, my name is Rajeev Sharma.

I have no distinct experience in public forum, but I have learned a bit from my son, a public forum debater.

Always Tech > Truth.

I don't know much about this month's topic, so keep that in mind and please be sure to explain your points in detail.

PLEASE SPEAK SLOWLY, and add me to the email chain @ rajeevsharma01@gmail.com

I do not judge cross, but please make sure to use this time wisely to clarify. Please be kind and respectful during the round. No racism, etc. Also, please don't prep steal.

Defense is not sticky, please extend your defense throughout the round.

Please weigh, collapse and extend your warrants. Second rebuttal HAS to frontline.

In final focus, please be brief with your points and make sure to weigh and explain why I should cast my ballot for your team. Please make it easy for me to understand.

I will be judging heavily on weighing and whether arguments were extended, so please be sure to do it.

Public Forum: Policy Maker ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; plans are okay ; Ks are okay, if ran and explained well

Policy Debate: Policy Maker ; Stock Judge ; Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ;

Lincoln-Douglas: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

World Schools Debate: No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

Please, no spreading!

I value quality over quantity of evidence -- relevancy (topical) , source , unique , legit

I expect teams to adhere to the resolution. Meaning, arguments MUST be balanced -- you choose how to balance them -- these balanced arguments will be your VOTERS

My ballot weighs:magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

Watch out for drops! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own.

Carry all arguments throughout the round.

Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

I need Voters and an Impact Calculus

Johnathen_standifer@roundrockisd.org andJohnathen_s@hotmail.com - do both, email issues suck.

But, set up a speech drop. It's 2024, there is no need to fight school emails for email chains. share your cases, move things forward.

TFA STATE -

1. in spite of what it is about to say below about arguments for me, I don't think this is a great topic for Policy ground. Like run it i'll evaluate it, but don't just do it because I used to do policy.

2. Please for the love of god understand the difference between AGI and AI.

General:

Experience in PF, CX and LD. I was an LD/CX debater in high school. (mostly LARPing/K in LD)

I try to run as close to a tab judge as I can, I'm willing to judge anything you run I just ask for justification in the round for why I should care about debating for it. Don't just read a trick in the constructive and drop it and expect me to flow it. extend that stuff and make it a voting issue.

I'm fine with speed, I'm fine with theory and I'm fine with progressive arguments.

LD -

Prefs -

Policy/K/Theory - 1

Phil - 2

Tricks - 3

Did policy and Ld in school.

If you want me to vote on something, tell me to vote on it. I don't want to have to do the work for you, the easier you make my ballot the more likely you are to pick it up. the more you're relying on a random response in the 1ar to be flowed and evaluated by me, the less likely you are to win. I'm not that good on the flow, just being honest. Collapse into a main argument or two, if you're asking me to do the work on evaluating between multiple meta layers, tell me how to do that work and make it easy for me.

STEALING THIS LINE because I love it: Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate

Read K's and Theory, I'll evaluate anything as long as you justify why I should care about it. I'm familiar with all the stock K's, if we're running anything fun just be sure to signpost it well and give me some solid voting issues. Make sure to hammer out why the theory arguments are actually important in the round, don't just run it tell me to vote it and leave it.

I'm fine with Policy based arguments, its the phil based ones i'm less familiar with. Fine with the basics (rawls, Kant, Hobbes) When we get outside of those, I'm totally down to evaluate them, just hold my hand a little bit more.

Tricks I'm just less familiar with. not saying I won't vote for them, just that i might....miss them? try me I guess.

PF - Don't play the "I can share this card if you want me to, oh which card was it? Hold on let me find it..." game. you read a card? Drop it in the speech drop. every other debate event is efficient with this, let's do better if we want to be taken seriously - this is one place i'll drop some speaks

Cool with K's and Theory in pf. Let's have some fun.

Policy:

Tab judge - Tech > Truth, speed is fine. If we are running any advanced K's give a good overview on how it relates to the round, i'm probably a little less familiar with them. share all evidence. Theory shells are fine.

Congress: I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a single bill in a congress speech. Rehashing only goes so far, I don't need 5 crystallization speeches.

MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. My points for speeches tend to go down the more an argument goes on and the more rehash we get. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite. If you're the 7th person to give me an argument and add nothing new....I don't care how good the speech is, my brain will be off.

Be competitive. this is a competition, not a friendly game of "What is every single person in the room's opinion on the topic"

Extemp - I'm usually rating structure and content over performance, If i'm not staring you down don't feel bad i'm writing about your speech and evaluating your argumentation. Time balance is important, don't try to inflate your speech time by having a huge 1st point and tiny second and thirds, etc. Performance aspects are important, but are usually second to content for me.

Interp - I am not what I would consider an interp coach, but I have coached multiple state/national qualifiers and a state finalist over the last couple of years. As a musician, I tend to look for variety in interp events, contrast in volume, tone, etc. blocking is...not something i'm great at feedback on? but I know it exists! cutting is always important to me. A well performed piece that doesn't make any sense isn't going to do well (I'm looking at you HI)

OO.Info - I am an English teacher on the side, so I'll be watching for general writing conventions more than performance aspects. (although I will 100% be watching for those as well) My comments are going to be more on structure and ideas for improvement. these events are interesting because it is YOUR writing and your voice, I enjoy them.

i'm probably a pretty standard tech judge but please check for my opinions on things that might be important to the way you debate (ie theory, ivis, speed, docs, tko, tricks, ks, etc.) it is long because i shouldn't have to say these things in round you should check for them if you do anything that has any chance of needing judge preference knowledge

harvard note: you probably should not read either of the following negs in front of me:

• 'we need to exploit immigrants for labor' arguments
• 'placate israel' arguments

if either of these are read i welcome and encourage you to read an ivi. this is the borderline ONLY time i will EVER encourage teams to read an IVI in front of me (thing you should read my thoughts on below if you want to read one PLEASE). i will have an extremely high threshold of responding to an ivi that says 'it is bad to argue that we shouldn't deport immigrants so that they can be exploited for labor in conditions comparable to slavery.' please do not defend evil things for the sake of a debate argument i know there are other sufficiently winnable arguments with good evidence.

I did PF at Westlake for 4 years (graduated 23) and qualled for TOC 3 times (kind of)

email cheriewang835@gmail.com. send CASE AND REBUTTAL docs (to everyone preferably but at least send to me)

almost every default here can be changed if you warrant that. e.g. if you forget to extend something in summary but warrant why extensions don't matter during final, i will disregard the lack of a summary extension. however if you say something racist you will not change my mind about if being racist should be allowed.

IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND SOMETHING say goodbye to it. if your opponents do not extend something please say something!! and then u don't have to respond to it.

conceded defense is sticky - if you don't frontline one of your contentions in second rebuttal don't go for it in summary. if ur first speaking u don't need to extend defense against a dropped contention. if second rebuttal drops one of the pieces of defense on a contention they do go for, i would like the first summary to explicitly extend the response but you could argue that you don't need it idc

PLEASE TIME SPEECHES cus i'm not going to. stop your opponents if they go 10+ over

things i like (order is prioritized):

• speech docs/disclosing
• bears trick
• they all saw a cat. trick
• early weighing/collapsing
• impact turns/defense
• polls trick
• cool arguments
• wolf in sheeps clothing trick

things i don't like (in no particular order):

• reading progressive arguments poorly

• most IVIs (read my section on IVIs if u plan to read one)

• going too fast for me

• signposting poorly.

• being offensive

• the liar's paradox (and most other paradoxes)

• not doing speech docs. if ur opponents doesn't want speech docs u don't have to send them, but if ur the team saying no speech docs i will dock speaks

tech>truth. i judge how i am directed to in round. my preferences will reflect in ur speaks but generally, read and do whatever u want and i will do my best to evaluate it

don't go too fast; i can only evaluate what i can flow.i will not pretend i heard stuff in rebuttal that was too fast for me.for reference u should top out ~900 words in constructive and that's being pretty generous. I DO NOT FLOW OFF DOC.

be nice or get 25s.

SIGNPOST. i do not flow things that aren't signposted. if there’s 100 different arguments and no one explains how they interact, they are all meaningless to me so i won't bother flowing them

u are extremely welcome to post round either verbally after round (unless tournament is running super late) or via email. i am happy to answer questions about the decision/strategy/etc. i do not expect teams to always agree with me

random things

my 2 biggest pet peeves are 1) fake norm setting and 2) wasting my time.

PLEASE DO NOT pad your time by reading the same responses with different cards multiple times. instead do weighing or make analytics i don't care if they are bad, i would rather flow that than another card saying the same thing.

hege args need real warrants too. also i will not like it if ur hege warrants are kinda racist.

if you read weighing and call it a prereq when it isn't actually one, i will not treat it like one.

i like analogies fine but not cliches (except for poking/feeding the bear i like those ones. generally speaking i like bears)

i don't believe in TKOs or 30 speaks theory and probably won't waive that

pf substance stuff

second rebuttal needs to frontline everything that they want to extend later. i would love to see some collapsing.

i have a decently high threshold for extensions but they don't need card names, just warrants and impacts. please don't go for more than one link/warrant when extending case if u don't have to. i really like being able to see strategy in every speech and largely decide speaks based on this.

i presume with my own coin flip unless told to do something else in round. i would love to be told to do something else in round. i will do literally everything i can think of to avoid presuming if no one tells me to presume, especially in a substance round.

warrant things

weigh things

extend things

IMPACT DEFENSE IS HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED IN PF. please read impact defense when someone reads a terrible impact

love a card heavy rebuttal (not as much as an analytics heavy one) but if i hear the same response with different cards a bunch of times it isn't going to trick me into thinking you read more than one response. i cannot stress how much it annoys me to hear a rebuttal with no strategy

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST

trigger warnings. they're getting their own section now

u don't need to read this section if u aren't reading/hitting tw and don't need a tw for case--generally, i believe trigger warnings should be read for graphic arguments that talk about traumatic subjects, that's all u need to know.

trigger warnings should have an opt out dont just list a bunch of triggering things prior to talking about them for 4 minutes.

trigger warnings have real impacts on safety that are key to preserve the balance between people reading arguments about serious issues and people not being triggered in a closed room for 60 minutes. i feel strongly that they should be read. if you read something graphic i will be extremely sympathetic to tw theory against u.

performative theory that pretends to set a good norm and does a bad job of it is one of my biggest pet peeves in debate and often actively harmful. please do not read trigger warning theory in front of me for no reason. please give good opt outs. if you are trivializing this issue i will still evaluate the round but i will tank your speaks.

IVIs

other prog stuff is below this. i need a section for IVIs sorry.

IVIs on bad ev or offensive behavior are totally fine. would love to evaluate both of those actually BUT U NEED TO ARTICULATE THEM CORRECTLY. if u want me to care about an issue and independently vote on it, u should care enough to build up that issue as an independent voter (what did they do wrong, why is it bad, why should i down them).

the two scenarios i described are the only ones where it makes sense to me to read an IVI instead of a shell. do not read disclosure in front of me and call it an IVI. do not read spec as an IVI. do not read T as an IVI. T is T.

i also believe that IVIs are often used as a way of doing more performative theory while skirting RVIs. please do not do that. i will tank your speaks forever. i am not forgiving on this issue.

theory

i love judging theory but i will take mediocre substance over bad theory any day (this does not refer to people who are new to reading theory all i'm saying is your brain should be on when you read theory no matter how advantageous it might be for you).

friv is great if you are chill and do a good job reading it.

i should never feel bad for your opponents if you initiate theory, especially friv. you should be the most polite person ever if you initiate theory. do not play dumb in cross fire. explain how to engage with the shell.

all parts of the shell + implication need to be extended in summary/final but not rebuttals.

going for RVIs/DTA/reasonability are cool strats that i think are underutilized in pf!

im a big fan of os disclosure. down to evaluate marginal misdisclosure shells if you can do a good job reading it.

my opinion is that disclosure is good but i won't hack for it if u can't defend it. content/trigger warnings are good on graphic args but i won't hack for it if u can't defend that.

tricks

don't really know what i'm doing but these are fun and i'll vote on them

don't really like paradoxes. i think polls is funny. eval after 1ac and gcd are ok. i dont know that many tricks

i need to see them on the doc! if i missed them, i will be a lot less willing to evaluate tricks and very open to hearing reasons the way the trick was read is unfair and should disqualify it. don't hide them in the card but the tagline is ok

Ks

please talk to me in round. if you don't talk to me before round i will probably just not vote on it. 100% open to hearing it just if ur going to u should talk to me before round and gauge the vibe idw to write another big fat section in my paradigm ab it

This is my first year in Speech and Debate, though I have a background in rhetoric. Have judged PF and LD rounds in few tournaments.

I do take some notes, but the focus of my attention is mainly the verbal presentation. Given this, please speak at a more conversational speed, though some spreading is acceptable.

Debaters should try to keep their arguments linked to core issues of the resolution.