In a debate round, I prefer to see a good amount of evidence followed by logic as to why this evidence is important. Make sure your speech is at a good pace so I can understand the arguments you are making.

Hi everyone,

I am a public forum debater and have debated for the past 3 years for Nueva. Here's what to note:

Email chains) Send speech docs for every speech with new evidence and add me via kaychan@nuevaschool.org.

Speed) Before I was pretty anti-speed, but I think so long as you aren't going like over 300wpm and send speech docs you're ok. I've found that spreaders also means yelling. If you start destroying my ears your speaks will probably represent that by -.1.

Tech v Truth) I will always prefer tech>truth, but I vote on warranting. I will NOT be happy if you start an evidence debate (you can almost find evidence to say anything, tell me why I believe you).

Progressive debate) I understand most Ks and am familiar with most the literature to back it up. If you run fem rage that's super funny and we luv, but you need to make it clear in the back-half what the actual K and alt is. Theory is the GOAT. I will vote off disclosure if there is an actual violation and I believe there can actually be good debates on it. Run round report and you have my respect. Make sure theres an actual violation and at least attempt to reach out so they meet the interp. Please do not read plushie theory.

General in Round) I expect everyone to be kind, accountable, and honest. I hate when teams steal prep (you will be side-eyed) and when people are mean in the cross.

With that being said, let's talk about speaks.

1. If you talk to me like I'm stupid, your speaks will be dog water
2. Make a BTS reference for +0.2 speaks (it needs to be a good one).
3. Show me your favorite song before the round and if I approve, +0.2 speaks.
4. I typically give 28s and 29s. If you say anything derogatory I will give you a 0 and go talk to tab (uh oh!)
5. Most of the time I am pretty nice with speaks, because I think getting speaker awards feels good and gets overlooked. Also speaks play a big fat role in seeding, so don't worry about it too much.

But on FF:

If you spread it, it's a no for me and tells me you can't be concise--- speaks will prob go down like 0.1. That's all.

Classes I would not take: AP Chem, Chem H, AP Calc BC, Trig H

Hi! I'm in my sixth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team.

I'd consider myself mostly flow/flay and generally tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments). This means I will flow the round (sans cross) and will evaluate any argument that has a clear (and carded) link chain and impact. All your evidence should be carded, but I will evaluate good analytics above bad cards.

Please time yourself and I will keep time as well. Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world and no one wants that.

Any discrimination (racism/sexism etc.) or abusive language (ad hominems etc.) will lead to the lowest speaks I can possibly give you and I will default to the other team. Please introduce yourself with your name, school, and pronouns before your round.

Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before round!

*audrey tsai paradigm !

I'm Andrew Chen and my son does LD debate. Although I don't require you to do these, it will make judging much easier and it will give you a bigger chance of winning. :-)

1. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. If I cannot understand you, then I simply stop flowing and you'll probably lose.

2. Don't be too aggressive, or I'll have a bad impression of you.

3. Make sure to keep eye contact with me, especially during cross examination.

4. During cross examination, do not argue. If you want my ballot, you just need to prove your side is better than the other. There is no need to yell.

5. Make sure to cite your sources, or I'll think that you made them up.

6. I allow a 10-15 second grace period for the constructive and rebuttals. For cross examination, finish your question and I will allow the other person to answer that question.

7. At the end, you need to CLEARLY tell me why your side has won.

Make sure to shake hands with each other and me at the end of each debate.

IMPORTANT: DO NOT COME LATER THAN THE STARTING TIME UNLESS THERE IS A DELAY!!!

Having a well prepared case, being organized, and following these preferences will give you the biggest chance of winning!

I WILL NOT DISCLOSE!!!

GOOD LUCK! :)

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

about me

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

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

basics

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

wear whatever you want

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

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

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

evidence

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

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

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

back half

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

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

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

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

theory

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

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

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

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

t

- yea ill vote off it

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

k

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

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

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

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Parent debater of 1 year.

Please talk slowly, I do not like "theory" or "counterplan" in PF. Please be kind! I expect a very respectful space.

I am a college student. I did PF for 4 years previously.

Important points for me:

Speed: I'm okay with most speeds, but don't speak super fast and then end up with an extra minute at the end of your speech. Take your time, don't rush through it just for the sake of it. Also, please don't spread.

Timing: Please don't go over time. I will let you finish your sentence if it happens. However, if you end up going 30+ seconds over, I will stop flowing.

Crossfire: Please be polite. If you cut people off or yell at people or are just being generally really aggressive, I will not hesitate to drop your speaker points. Also, please do not spend half of cross sharing your ideas.

(PF specific) Theory/Ks/Progressive Arguments: I don't prefer these. Only run if warranted by something that happens in the round.

Don't be afraid to call something out or ask questions in the middle of the round. I want everyone to be able to have fun. Good luck on your rounds!

Hi! I'm in my fifth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team. I've solely debated in west coast circuits other than TOC. Flay (flow all speeches other than cross)

TLDR (READ THIS): Be polite, follow PF rules and evidence ethics, and have fun. The best rounds are when both teams can vibe together.

• Tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments or link chains that just logically don't make sense)
• Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be (I'll just drop the card after a few minutes)
• Send the fully cut card
• Good cards > good analytics > bad cards > bad analytics
• No "debater math." Seriously I will drop the card
• Fully extend (links and impacts with the card name) in summary and FF or I'll drop the argument
• Please weigh (more detail below)
• Collapse!!
• Just signpost and provide a brief offtime roadmap to make all our lives easier
• Theory, speed, evidence, discrim stuff below in more detail

General Preferences:

Time yourself. Turns can be extended on their own as long as your opponent also extends the contention you're turning, otherwise you have a bit more work to do about extending their link + impact. Voting on clever turns is really fun for me, just make sure to explicitly say "link/impact turn" so I flow it as offense.

Some of my favorite rounds to debate and judge have been because of interesting framing. Ideally, frameworks would be brought up in constructive but rebuttal at the latest. If no framework is brought up, I'll default to utilitarianism. Personally, I think frameworks about things like structural violence can be really effective if done correctly (tell me why it's so important), and good critiques of util can be really interesting. I love well-implicated overviews and interesting definitions, just make sure to explain them.

Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world, and no one wants that. Metaweighing is cool, I think more teams should metaweigh but it's not a huge deal if you don't.

Speed:

If you spread, I want your speech docs (send them to your opponents too if they ask). I will yell CLEAR if I can’t follow. Do NOT spread in novice. Regardless of your speed, please speak clearly.

Evidence:

Bad evidence will get dropped and if the evidence ethics is really bad, it may result in an auto drop, but you have to point out faulty evidence to me; otherwise I won’t evaluate it. Indicts are amazing if you're clear about them.

I won’t intervene unless I really have to, and I’ll take your evidence at face value (unless the evidence ethics is so bad it’s incomprehensible), so you have to indict the evidence if there’s any problem with it and directly tell me if you want me to call for it/evaluate it. There's no need for me to be part of your email chain/doc share unless there are evidence ethics violations.

Progressive arguments:

Novice: Do not run theory or Ks unless there is a really egregious violation. I will not vote on disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory in novice, that’s really exclusive to the debate space and it’s not suitable for a novice pool.

Varsity: Theory and Ks are fine. I think the critical evaluation of debate is really important but you still have to convince me why I should prefer your progressive argumentation over the resolution. At the highest levels of debate (TOC, nats, high elims), I’m more inclined to vote on anti-paraphrasing but I usually won’t vote on disclosure unless it really is a norm at that specific tournament and it’s very well argued.

Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round!