Hi I'm Carter, I am a current debater at Carrollwood Day School in Florida. I have competed in both local and nat circuits, primarily in NCFL but have done tech stuff in the past.

Email: CarterC05@icloud.com

TLDR: Read whatever you want, I am a firm believer in trying to stay as tab as I can. Obviously do not read anything that is explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. Other than that, if you just extend a warrant and do proper weighing I am willing to vote on anything.

Quick Pref Sheet:

K (idpol, reps, generics) - 4

T/Theory - 4

LARP - 2

Phil (not dense lit) - 3

Tricks - 5

Traditional - 1

K (dense pomo) - 5

Phil (dense lit) - 5

General Info:

- When hitting a novice I do not care what you read. However, I do care the way you act. Do not be condescending or rude. I do believe everyone should have a chance to learn.

- Clarity > Speed, don't go fast just for the sake of going fast. If I can not hear you properly I will yell out clear 3 times after that I will stop flowing.

- Please do not feel like you have to overaccommodate for me. Don't read lay just because I have it as a 1, the debate is revolved around you and your opponent so have fun!

• Keep in mind that although I have tech experience, I'm certainly not an expert and primarily competed in lay. I'm perfectly fine with weighing LARP stuff, but know that if you choose to read dense phil stuff or a K I may not be able to judge super well. Go for it if you want, just a warning.

Speaks:

Nothing really much to say about speaks. I will try to be generous with speaks, but that can change depending on how the round works. Just have fun, debate is about the debaters not the judge so express who you are!

Here are some ways to increase speaks:

- Not being rude in the round.

Here are some ways to decrease speaks:

- Being rude in the round.

- Making the round very messy and hard to eval.

- Harassing your opponent during CX/Flex Prep.

- (there really isn't much you can do to hurt your speaks a lot just please be chill)

If there are any questions you have regarding anything just reach out to me before the round and I will be happy to answer! See you in the round and glhf!

First, let me say that I'm truly impressed by the caliber of person who invites this kind of challenge in their lives. Already, you win in my book. I appreciate the opportunity to witness your talent. I am generally new to judging, but if I had to categorize myself, I would say I'm a "flay" judge. I have a background in law and philosophy. I value logical arguments that are supported with evidence. I will not judge based on my prior knowledge, but on the arguments and evidence that you provide. I expect civility as a baseline. Present a strong enough case that you win on merits, not bravado. I appreciate if you can be specific when weighing instead of only talking in generalities. Also, I cannot give you credit for that which I cannot understand, so do not forsake communication for content. In other words, be careful when spreading. If your opponent(s) and I can't understand your arguments because you don't articulate, then you don't get credit for them. Lastly, because I will be flowing, I will know whether you provide an honest representation during summary arguments. Good luck!

Blue Key: I didn’t have time to get all my comments in before they closed If you are interested, email me and I will send you an extensive reply.

Add sophieguarnieri31@gmail.com for docs/chains

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

PF

competed vpf at tournaments like NSDA, NCFL, TOC, Harvard, Emory, Blue Key, etc.

researcher for debatetrack & student at UF

in general, substance/logic/warranting>>tech

Speeches

**Signposting and off time roadmaps are encouraged for every speech following initial constructives**

AC/NC: Any speed is fine by me, but clarity is important. If you plan on speaking fast I’m going to encourage and email chain to be set up amongst teams. Make sure link chains are cohesive and that your evidence means what you read in case. I’ll drop speaks if you get caught misinterpreting evidence.

Rebuttals: If frameworks, observations, overviews etc. are being ran by either teams constructive that you plan on addressing, please address in the beginning of your rebuttals as they prereq all args. Respond as best you can, and frontline.

Summary: This is where I want you to crystallize voting issues. Write my ballot for me, tell me why your arguments still stand and why your opponents do not. Weighing should begin here- it’s easier for my to give you my ballot if you use comparative weighing, our impacts to their impacts. Even if you believe you delinked an impact that they still collapse on, I want to see it being weighed.

FF: Simple. Tell me why you won, and why they lost. Re affirm key voting issues. Extending warrants that were expanded on in summary won’t be flowed, it’s not fair because the other team can’t respond.

CX: I won’t flow cross, but I will be paying attention to what’s said. Bring up and extend any concessions made by opponents in speeches as Cross alone isn’t enough to win a point.

Have fun. Debate should be enjoyable.

Prog Stuff

Kritiks: You might need to explain them to me like I am 5 depending on the complexity. I’ll be able to follow some common stuff but better to play it safe and fully explain. As long as you explain the literature clearly you should be ok with me.

Theory: I'm familiar with how to evaluate it, but I am not a big fan of it personally. If there is a legitimate violation, read it the speech after the violation has occured and I’ll evaluate it. I default to competing interps but can be told otherwise. Also, don’t read anything on round reports. That’s just stupid. Frivolous theory will result in 30 speaks if I find it genuinely amusing, but you’ll probably take a high speak loss.

Disad: Idek why this is considered prog, I’m cool with them just signpost well if you plan on running them in your rebuttal.

Don’t run Counterplans in PF, thats just not fair for the AFF.

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

Other

Speaker Points: I'll make the round 29-28 in most cases. If I feel the round is messy it will be 28-27, super close will be 30-29, and a mismatch 30-28.

Add me to any docs/chains that you do set up.

Rascism, sexism, homophobia, ad hominen etc. will drop speaks to 25 and almost always lose you the round. Don’t be a jerk

Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. You have approx a 10 second grace period.

Email if you have any questions about my rfd.

Pine View KP; NSD Instructor; Lake Highland Prep Coach

Tabula Rasa

The funnier you make the round, the better it will go for you

TLDR

Tech>truth. Weigh, give me good warranting, and DO NOT SPREAD(honestly i prefer if you heir on the side of slower; if your opponents can’t understand you I probably cannot either). Defense is sticky but I only grant you marginal defense(if the ; first FF may read some type of new weighing (NOT elaborate weighing… no overviews, prereq analysis, etc.). Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well.

Signposting:

This is essential; do it.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too

Summary:

First summary only needs to extend turns but should also extend terminal defense if you have time. Defense is sticky, however, I’d prefer for the second summary to extend as much defense as possible. The only new turns or defense I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can make new implications on weighing but not brand new weighing or new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, treat me like a flay judge in these speeches and my decision becomes a lot easier.

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

Add me to email chain Rafehk21@gmail.com; I prefer if you send a speech doc beforehand with all evidence unless it's analytics

Speed:

Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (250+ wpm) there is no way you get above 27 speaks. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast or not clear and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Time:

You are not a baby, time yourself

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.

––––––PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

Theory:

I enjoy theory debate (ONLY IF NOT ABUSIVE). Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells. I think abuse in rounds is bad but if you read other shells it may not go well for you. I EVALUATE THEORY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN OTHER TECH JUDGES (model of debate > than a small random squirrlley turn)

Kritiks: I read a couple K's in my time but I am extremely bad at evaluating them SO if you run one, please WIN the argument sufficiently. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY WITH A MEGAMIND BRAIN.

Tricks: These genuinely create a stupid model of debate but go for them if you want to.

TKO:If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks, if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.