Aff team loses .1 for every minute late the round starts. The 1AC should start on time, regardless of whether the neg is ready and set up on time.

I'm not a fan of small talk.

Emails for chain:

ebarrett.5210@gmail.com

lasadebatedocs@googlegroups.com (do not put this email on chain if LD)

Name the email chain with the format “Tournament name---Round---Aff team XX v Neg team XX”.

Freshman at University of Michigan. Debated at LASA for 6 years.

Philosophy:

I appreciate that debaters spend hundreds of hours preparing for tournaments and make significant financial sacrifices to be here. I believe debate is a game, and judges have a moral imperative to fairly evaluate debates. When judges make decisions that don't accurately and impartially reflect the debating done in the round they do a profound disservice to the activity and disrespect all 4 debaters in the round. Personal beliefs, moral guilt, or social considerations should never affect the outcome of a debate, and they will not factor into my decisions. I would rather vote for my worst enemy going for my least favorite argument against my best friend if I thought they had won technically, then render a decision that did not reflect who did the better debating.

This is not to say I think I'm a perfect or even very good judge. As a debater, I tried to avoid preferring first year outs due to their inexperience and frequent inconsistency. It would be egotistical to try and promise my judging may not suffer from those flaws. I can, however, promise that I will try my hardest to judge debates impartially and diligently. I know that the worst decisions debaters receive are felt viscerally and intensely. The idea of unjustly inflicting that feeling onto someone is frightening.

I encourage you to post round me or any other judge in order to better understand the decision or attempt to demonstrate why a decision is incorrect. The state of judging is an existential threat to the activity, and lazy, unobjective, and incompetent judges should be willing to incur public shaming as a cost to the dishonor they do onto debates.
Non-negotiables:

---Constructives are 8 minutes, Rebuttals are 5 minutes. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Each debater gives 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. I will only flow words said by the person giving the speech.

---Ethics challenges require stopping the debate. I won’t vote on evidence ethics against cards that have previously been read unless you can show that you made a good-faith attempt to notify your opponents before the debate. I prefer injunctions that are less severe then making a team lose, like striking the card or argument. Clipping = L

---Debate is a communication activity. I flow the speech, not the doc. I usually flow on excel. I may check the doc for clipping a few times during each speech, but I often don't open the doc. I do not read tags or analytics in the doc, since it is impossible to segregate the information I'm receiving from the speech from the information I'm receiving from the doc. When I review evidence after the debate, I put it into invisibility mode to avoid accidently reading non-highlighted parts of cards. If evidence comparison occurs, I'll look at cards in context.

---Tell me how to write the ballot. Do not tell me how to assign speaker points. Since the W or L reflect who won technically, I view speaker points as being a sort of market-correction that can reward practices besides technical victory (although technical debating is certainly a factor). Examples: research quality, clarity, innovativeness, humor, organization, knowledgeableness, minimization of dead time, personality, strategy, CX skills

---I will not vote for an argument that’s new in the 2AR under any circumstance. An argument is new if my understanding of it changes from the 1AR to the 2AR.

---Tech over truth. Arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact for them to matter. If I can’t explain an argument to the other team after the debate I won’t vote for it. Truth effects tech because bad arguments can be more easily beaten.

---If you have a choice between winning the debate in 5 minutes and winning the debate in 30 seconds, I would much rather you win in 30. Winning without using full speech time will be heavily rewarded with speaks. Also, +0.1 for every 1 minutes of prep you do not take.

---I will only say "clear" in the case that your spreading on cards is approaching an ethics violation. Clarity of tags and analytics won't cause me to say "clear" since I think it would be interventionist to prompt debaters to make their speech more flowable.

---Try-or-die describes a situation in which extinction is inevitable and only one side has a chance of solving it. If one side accesses try or die I will vote for them. Examples include an advantage with no defense or a counterplan or a DA where only uniqueness is answered.

Pre-dispositions (can be overturned easily if you win them technically):

---I believe the affirmative has the "burden of proof," or a task of proving the resolution is true, and the neg has the "burden of rejoinder," prompting it to disprove the affirmative. It is not-obvious to me why affirmatives that don't advocate for (or at least in the direction of) the resolution have met this burden of proof. I do not know why an affirmative being true or good merits an aff ballot if it does not meet the burden of proof of the resolution. Since the burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder, I am not sure why such affirmatives justify negation either. Further, in cases where the presented 1AC negates the resolution, I could easily be persuaded that I have a jurisdictional obligation to vote neg.
---This spiel is NOT to say I would not vote for a planless affirmative (see tech over truth above) but to disclose my predisposition. I think the best arguments on framework favor the neg and many presumption-style arguments are persuasive.

---I default to judge kick until told otherwise.

---I am not a fan of "inserting" rehighlighted evidence. If you do, you have to explain the lines that go your way for me to look at it, to the point that it may just be faster for you to read the rehighlight. I don't look closely at "inserted" charts that aren't explained, unless you read words in the chart.

---Theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. "X is a voting issue" requires a warrant to be a reason to reject the team.

---I’ll read evidence, but my evaluations of evidence can be easily overcome with evidence comparison.

---Presumption flips neg unless a the neg forwards a counterplan.

---Debates a game and fairness is an impact.

---I do not find glee at the thought of judging anti-intellectual arguments like extreme impact turns, but if you can't beat them you deserve to lose. I won't hesitate to vote on bad arguments if you win them.

---Since the 2NC is a constructive, new arguments can be legitimately introduced. Since the 1NR and 1AR are rebuttals, new arguments cannot be legitimately introduced. This includes counterplans, impacts, theory, and t violations.

---I am more intuitively persuaded by predictability/arbitrariness/precision impacts then limits/debatability in T, framework, competition, and theory debates. Words mean what they mean, and preferring a smaller or larger topic is subjective. Better for reasonability then the average judge.

---"Extinction outweighs" is very intuitive to me. However, I would not consider myself a member of the cult of extinction because extinction claims are often hyperbolic and rarely substantiated by impact evidence.

---I generally don't treat evidence written by debate coaches about debate with any more credence then arguments made by debaters about debate. There's a transparent conflict of interest, and I don't believe advanced communication degrees gives anyone more authority to speak about debate in light of the diversity of opinions about debate among members of the activity.

---I might not be the best judge for "technical debate bad" or "line by line bad" arguments, since I don't know how else to decide who won arguments in the debate. If you win I should vote for the side I think is most closely advocating for the truth, that may not go in your favor.

---I'm shocked by paradigms that say they would not evaluate philosophy debates and default to utilitarianism but also say they think fairness is an impact or that they will never vote for racist arguments because they are unethical. Many of the most espoused premises in debates are deontological, not utilitarian, claims, so refusing to evaluate competing ethical theories seems pretty intellectually lazy. That being said, I am not necessarily familiar with all the terminology and jargon in phil debates.

---I believe conditionality is permissible.

---I like functional competition.

---My record suggests that I am a better neg judge then aff judge. Sorry :(

LD-Specific:

---I'm unfamiliar with LD-specific terminology, so your arguments will be more persuasive to me if you explain using terms I would know. For example, assume I don't know what a "hijack" means but I do understand what to do with "Our moral philosophy link turns/solves the benefits of theirs."

---I am also not necessarily familiar with norms related to when new arguments can be legitimately introduced. I will use my best judgement but you might have to do a little bit more in terms of explaining why something new should be disallowed in the 1AR and NR.

Hello. I'm Deniz and this is my second year doing LD at Westlake.

Please add me to the email chain: db97009@eanesisd.net

You can ask any questions you have pre-round

I'm fine with any arguments as long as you understand what you're reading and can explain it clearly in cx.

I'm also good with speed, but please slow down in tags and analytics; and remember to signpost as well. I will give low speaks if you sacrifice clarity to outspread your opponent.

LARP: This is what I'm most comfortable evaluating. Extend the links and don't drop any turns. Please weigh: the sooner you start weighing the more likely I am to vote for you // do lbl; I vote off the flow

Ks: I understand the generic lit and can vote for you if you can explain it well. You need to have good links and rob

Theory:I don't have any strong ideas about this, just please don't run friv args if you're a novice

Phil/fw:I don't really have an extensive knowledge about dense lit, but if you're reading generic things like util/sv/kant and you can correctly defend it, you should be fine

Other:

Please don't go for everything in the 1ar/2n; you need to choose and collapse

Be kind and respect your opponent

General:

L C Anderson '23, Georgia Tech '27

I competed in PF for 3 years on the national circuit

add me to the email chain: benjamincoleman05@gmail.com

For Emory 2025:

read whatever you want

set up a chain and send speech docs, if you don’t you won’t get above a 28

**this means send whatever you read from in addition to your cards if you aren't reading directly off of your cut cards**

the best debates are fun and interactive. if you’re gonna read stock i especially like when teams put their own unique spin on it, if you want to go for something creative this is probably the round to do it in

if you’re gonna go fast idc but 1) CLARITY is so so important 2) don’t paraphrase 3) actually read your taglines 4) if there’s a lot of short cards pls number your arguments

here’s how my rfds usually look in stock rounds: i vote ____ because they have a risk of link on x argument but the other team conceded x piece of terminal defense so i don’t care if you outweigh. PLEASE don’t do this.

General Things:

tech > truth

do whatever you want as long as you’re not being a horrible person

speed is fine but be clear and don’t spam one sentence cards it’s annoying

i’ll always disclose - feel free to ask questions after i’m done!

SEND DOCS and if you cut out a lot of stuff send a marked doc after your speech. (a google doc does not count)

absent warrants otherwise, i presume first speaking team in pf

speaks will be good. i want you to break

if i'm judging ld or cx just do whatever you normally do but be clear. there is a difference between spreading (clearly) and mumbling, if you can't spread then just don't.

Prefs Guide:

1: substance if you make it fun / interesting / unique

1: T / non friv theory

2: most K (topic specific)

3: performance / non-t aff

4: friv

4: the same debate 6 rounds in a row

5: tricks

Specifics:

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky

i won't evaluate new in the 2 and will attempt to protect first final if necessary

weighing is important but usually optional and i generally don't care as much as some other pf judges that just say oh look weighing let’s vote aff! you need to win the link to win the weighing

link weighing > impact weighing > no weighing

i don't care too much about extensions especially for conceded arguments but you obv still have to do it

impact turns are v fun but you should be extending your opponents link if going for them, if you don’t link i will be very sad :(

super blippy frontlining is impossible to flow especially if you're spreading so try to actually explain things. i have won rounds solely by doing this tho so obv it has its place, do it if you want just make sure i can flow it. also if you say things like "no warrant" i'm holding you to your response, you can't go up and explain why their warrant is false later

i don't flow cx, anything important should be brought up in speech but i do think cx is binding

if both teams agree i'm down to skip gcx for 1 min of prep (doesn't apply to novice pf or split panels)

Evidence + Ethics:

I don’t care about what your evidence says. I do care that both teams are able to engage with it.

if you insist on paraphrasing, at least be honest about it. own it. just fully paraphrase your case. be ready to debate theory though.

a case with 59 bracketed phrases including things like [for third-party moderation] and [unlawful activity] and “to p[reserve] profits” (yes i’ve actually seen this before) is paraphrased. a rhetoric doc with no cards anywhere to be found is paraphrased. i view those things as worse than paraphrasing because you’re being dishonest about it. please don’t lie.

taglines are not one word transitions like “currently” and “thus”, i can’t flow that. these kind of nitpicky things don’t matter as much when you’re going slower but if you’re spreading i need to be able to flow your arguments. saying “and” or “next” between cards or numbering arguments also helps

“rhetoric docs” are stupid and invite clipping bc your cuts usually don’t match the rhetoric. if you read off one of these i’m now requiring that you send both the doc you read from and the carded case to avoid things like this.

do not send me hyperlinks please i can’t look through that and neither can your opponents.

tldr i’ve only ever given one team 25s and it was for doing everything i listed above in one round. if you insist on doing any of this PLEASE strike me.

Progressive Arguments:

my general rule of thumb is: if you're competing in varsity at a real circuit tournament, you should be able to handle progressive debate. anything else and you'll prob lose anyways bc you should get better at subs first

theory: default CI, no RVIs, spirit > text, DTD - read whatever shells you want, i'm very comfy evaluating

i won't inject my personal preferences about debate into theory rounds so you can have a bit of fun with your shells

with that said, here are those preferences (sorry for the wall of text): disclosure is good, full text or cites box only is worse than no disclosure, idc about round reports but i guess if you’re on the bubble you probably would, rebuttals probably should be disclosed as well (every card you read goes in the os doc), spreading theory is really hard to win bc if you’re capable of winning it you’d probably rather just spread some random K you found online, email chains are good, paraphrasing is bad, hyperlinks are bad, bracketing is bad, trigger warnings are bad, opt outs are bad, i have mixed feelings on condo advocacies in pf bc of the time constraints, spec is probably fine unless it’s really abusive (or you can just add some blip probability warrants), i don’t lean either way on T and will listen to plan/counterplan debates in pf, in the past i’ve leaned aff on T-fw but that’s just bc you guys are badly prepared, i’ve also seen some pf teams read non-t stuff on the neg

“but i go to a small school” and “it’s my team policy” are definitely my least favorite theory blocks of all time

theory arguments need voters and some way to deal with paradigm issues, this is why the short blip IVIs are kinda useless imo. reading your theory in paragraph form is fine though

**offensive counterinterps circumvent the RVI debate**

read theory immediately after the violation and answer your opponent's shell in the speech directly after it was read

for theory extensions, bc i get asked this a lot- i don’t require u to extend the entire text of the interp/violation etc in rebuttal like some judges but you should be frontlining and extending specific standards so i at least know what you’re going for

you usually need a brightline for reasonability but if their shell is frivolous it can work

I do not require trigger warnings. i will obv vote on a shell (for either side) but i do not think they improve debate in any way and are just used to exclude certain types of arguments. also it’s the real world triggering stuff happens just don’t be excessively graphic

K: fine just don't expect me to know your lit.

please line by line!!!!

don't spam jargon you don't understand because i likely won't either.

this should be pretty obvious but don't paraphrase your k, you should also def be open sourcing these after they’re read bc they can get super unpredictable and shifty in pf

don’t spread random theory blocks off policy backfiles (you know who you are).

i really like topic-specific k's like cap or sec with big stick impacts but anything is fine as long as you warrant it out. after judging enough shallow pf k rounds i’d like to say i’m a pretty good judge for them so do with that what you will.

k affs are fine but please don't get too heated, i want the round to be enjoyable.

tricks don’t deserve their own section especially because i get put in the pf pool but i hate when teams use truth testing to justify some stupid paradox that makes the world false. also for your opponents’ sake please put them in the doc

to everybody: just have fun. i get it stressful rounds happen just try not to take it too seriously. after judging last year at emory i realized i actually care a lot about how you guys do so i always put time into my decisions and love when teams ask me more questions after round. if you want any advice feel free to contact me whenever and i’ll be happy to help :)

hii!! i'm excited to judge, this is my fourth year in LD at westlake.

read whatever you want, you do you! only thing i ask is that you're respectful to your opponent.

i prefer speechdrop, but email is fine too ( cc95736@eanesisd.net )

be nice to each other, have fun, and happy debating :)

Hi! I'm Alex! (she/her)

Pls add me to the email chain alexcoulter512@gmail.com

I did 4 years of LD at Westlake

Read what you're best at. Please respect pronouns, triggers and be kind!

Fine with any speed but pls be clear with tags/analytics

I haven't sat in a debate round since March and do not have in depth knowledge of the topic so please explain your niche link scenarios

Ks

Read what you want to read! I mostly read K's Sophomore year and beyond. Please have clear links, rob, and alt. And do not read identity Ks if you do not identify with that identity group! I will drop you with very low speaks.

Policy

I'm good to eval. Please weigh and have a clear explanation of your link chain

T/Theory

I think T can be super strategic. If you read frivolous theory you should have a clear explanation of the interp and why it is good for debate.

Phil

I have a good understanding of Deleuze, and decent understanding of Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, etc. For dense phil pls understand your fw/ method and be able to articulate it to me.

Tricks

Not my fav but if you have a solid warrant I can be persuaded

Have fun and be nice!!

hey y'all, i'm ellis (he/him). did pf grades 11 and 12 at westlake (my record is the epitome of mediocrity), and i graduated in 2023 and haven't touched anything debate related in over a year. i'm not lay by any means but please be chill. spreading won't dock speaks or anything baseline, but if it comes at the expense of clarity i will likely lose a lot of what you're saying! i'm not familiar with this topic and my general skills are rusty. do your best to use minimal topic-specific jargon, etc. etc.

i will only look at evidence you explicitly ask me to call for, but i expect speech docs even if you don't send to each other. if i do not get PDF DOCUMENTS i'm giving 27s max. anytime someone has shared a google doc link it's usually for sus reasons. send pdfs. make sure said docs have all the cards you read in them. if a specific card is the deciding issue for a round and i can't find it in the doc when i go back to look for it, you're losing the round.

my email is ellishaynes2004@gmail.com

safety comes first always. pronouns and triggers are complete non-negotiables and failure to comply will always result in an L0

shells
only shell i'll listen to is disclosure because tbh i don't want to deal with other annoying things. if you want to read a stupid framework like funny or something, be my guest. but know that if your opponents allow it, the chances my decision will make sense go down by about 40%. it is probably in your best interest to go for substance.

in that same vein, don't paraphrase. if i catch you doing it, i'll dock speaks with little-to-no leniency on misrepresented cards. in terms of the actual vote, i will only look at what i'm explicitly asked to by your opponents. so, if you catch your opps paraphrasing outside the author's intent, TELL ME and there's a good chance i'll drop the ev entirely.

gen speech stuff
TIME SPEECHES. this goes for you and your opponents. if they continue 10 past you can cut them off! timing speeches is like bottom five things to do as a judge, i will not do it. y'all are big kids you can handle it.

collapsing/frontlining in second rebuttal is 100% necessary. starting weighing here would be goated of you, and implicating it would be even better! don't just say "we outweigh on ____" because that doesn't count. summaries should always weigh. you can start in final if you want but it would not behoove you. more on weighing in a bit

final is perhaps the most important speech in the round because these are the only things i will vote off of. if you extend every frontline you have except for one and your opps extend the response, that's what i'll vote on.

flex prep is fine with me, just don't abuse. 1:30 more maximum

extensions need to be clear and explicit in the back half, and please do off and def; neither are sticky. this is so important if you want me to vote for you i really cannot overstate this. make your extensions as concise and clear as you can. while appreciated, i don't need specific card names. just warrants and impacts.

SIGNPOST WELL. like i said, i haven't touched this activity in over a year, make it as easy for me to vote for you as possible.

implicating turns is so so so so necessary, please do it. if your opponent doesn't implicate a turn on a c you want to drop, tell me and i'll let you drop it uncontested. that said, if a turn on one of your c's goes extended w/o a response from you then it'll weigh pretty heavily on my decision and likely lose you the round.

make my job as easy as possible by eliminating as many things from my flow as possible. it would be amazing if everyone collapsed on most things and went for their mos defended offense, but i don't expect miracles.

weighing
this needs to be extensive or i am going to be a) very sad; and b) likely to down you. try or die is a good argument but only if uniqueness is conceded.

i can be convinced that economic growth and solves for symptoms of it (i.e. crime etc.) or that climate change will lead to increased chances of international and/or domestic conflict. however, i don't assume these. convince me!!!!!!

make sure the stuff you're doing isn't new. don't bring in new cards during 2nd summary or even 1st final as a weighing mechanism. if i don't have the card before those speeches, i'm not flowing it.

if you're gonna do probability stuff, it's in your best interest to do link-level weighing as opposed to impact.

substance
tech > truth (to a far extent)

i don't know the stock args very well but i am putting it on the record right now that if your arg is remotely discriminatory i am immediately less likely to vote for you.

cross
use speeches to call attention to things someone conceded in cross. ik this is weird but deal with it. i don't flow cross, but i listen. if your opponent concedes something and you bring it up in speech i will drop it. otherwise, it's being ignored. i once lost around because i accidentally conceded something in second cross. don't be like me.

pls everybody participate in grand cross! if someone doesn't i'll prob dock speaks a little bit, but if it's because no one lets them get a word in then i'll dock everyone else.

things i like:
- making me laugh (with you, not at you)
- when trigger warnings have an opt out and don't just list a bunch of triggering things and then talk about them for 4 minutes that makes no sense
- when varsity debaters are nice to novices and don't make them regret ever joining debate to begin with. if you read complex stuff on novices to win the round, you will win with the worst speaks of your career!
- when speech docs/email chains have subject lines that make it easy to tell what round its for

things i don't like:
- racist arguments (yes this includes the neg ag argument)
- being mean to your opponents. a small, tiny, miniscule amount of aggression is permissible in cross, but the moment it becomes discriminatory or otherwise hateful i'm not gonna tolerate it. i'm an argumentative person, i get it. have your fun but don't be rude
- spreading and thus making my job (voting for you!) more difficult
- trying to trick me by lying about what happened in round. i may be rusty at flowing but i'm not stupid
- having to flow useless things. remember, flowing = work and i don't want to do work that is not valuable to evaluating the round, so don't make me flow the same response a bunch of times.
- cases with more than three long c's
- when i can tell a team hasn't bothered to read my paradigm. this is less of a voting issue in and of itself, but will probably have voting-issue impacts.

i care abt rules of the event but not if you just say "my opponent used 9.8 seconds of extra time which is more than the allotted ___ in pf so you should drop all their arguments because they're stupid and don't understand the rules." blatant violations will be reflected in speaks and in the rfd. refer to the above again for specifics.

if i get to the room and both teams seem to be ready to go on their own but haven't flipped or established disclosure expectations, i will be very mad. pls use your time pre-round wisely. make pre-flows before the round or, again, i will be very mad. the tournament is already delayed enough, let's not drag it on longer. i don't love post-rounding in the room but if you want to email me for more info, be my guest. again, the tournament is likely delayed enough, i don't want to spend valuable time on a decision that's already been made.

haven't ever seen one but i like impacts that are connected to dune. e.g. if your impact is related to nukes but you call them atomics and mention the great convention, or if you have smt ai related and you connect it to the butlerian jihad, i am going to like that quite a lot. idk if any of you know what those words mean, but you're spending your friday and saturday doing debate for god's sake so you have to be a bit nerdy. I WILL KNOW IF YOU'RE FAKING IT. also if you have a letterboxd, email me your @ (again let's not waste time) and i may give bonus speaks depending on ur taste. 0.5-1 max!

i know how much time and effort goes into this activity and i want to do my job as best i can. judge-screws suck, don't let me mess up! follow this paradigm to a T and you will most likely be upped. help me help you. if you have questions about any of this, please do not hesitate to ask via email or before the round

I have done PF debate for four years at westlake. TOC and TFA State qualed.

I am okay with any argument as long as you extend, give me voters and are winning on the flow.

Don't be offensive, racist, sexist, antisemitic, etc. or I will drop you and your speaks.

Have fun in round and make it a positive experience for everyone.

Bonus speaks if you include a call out to Bad Bunny, do a 360 spin during a turn or make me laugh.

Lay

Have fun and be nice! :)

My name is Andy and I go to Westlake High School. I'm currently a sophomore.

I'll evaluate any arguments as long as I understand them and you extend them with a link and impact. You can ask me before the round if I'm ok with it but if it's not a dense k or niche Phil then I should be fine.

tech > truth

I feel most comfortable judging -

1 - Policy, theory

2 - phil, tricks, topicality

3 - K

Prep

I can keep track of prep time. Don't steal prep. Use it efficiently. I'm cool with flex prep

Speed

I am cool with speed as long as you are relatively clear. If you do spread very quickly, send the doc please.

I will tell you to slow down or say clear a few times if you are going too fast. After that, if I still can't discern what you are saying, I will tank speaks and might be more inclined to not vote for you.

Cross Ex

I do listen and flow cx. Try to ask good questions.

Speaks

If you end your speech with extra time, I will boost speaks. Using cx well will also net you higher speaks.

If you go for an interesting or cool strat, then I will also boost speaks.

Policy

Counterplans are cool, and clever PICs are great. When extending CPs, make sure to clearly explain the solvency and net benefit, and why it competes. DAs are fine, try to have up to date cards. Uniqueness card especially.

Phil

I am most familiar with Kant. Other stuff I'm okay with are rawls, deleuze, prag, and levinas. I probably won't be able to evaluate anything other than what I've listed.

Theory

I will evaluate friv theory. Default to competing interps dta no rvis. Slow down on interps and counter interps

Topicality

Having cards helps convince me of a violation. It's cool to see a t shell with different standards and implications than what most people read.

K

Please only read generic stuff

How to make me vote for you

• Weigh
• judge instruction
• one off case
• clear ballot story
• link analysis
• strategic concessions

Also make sure to have fun debating

add me to email chain and send carded docs pls :

ak98641@eanesisd.net

​

Put the Public back in Public Forum!!!

​

• lay judge

• truth > tech

• i flow cross

• bad with speed

• sticky defense

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

Noah Wong was here

Joshua Kou was not here and does not condone this

​

read counter-interp and warrant out K's

​

I'm Nik, I did pf for four years at Westlake

add me to email chains please: nikxkas@gmail.com

I'm good with speed but send speech docs please

make the round fun

be nice and don't be problematic (nothing sexist, racist, etc.)

General

- Tech>Truth

- please collapse

- if no offense in the round I'll presume neg

- please warrant args and weigh, I won't vote for incomplete args

- second rebuttal must frontline

- summary must extend everything they want to be evaluated (defense isn't sticky)

- I won't evaluate anything new in second final

- read from cut cards

- weighing in second rebuttal is good

- good overall strategy gets you better speaks

Prog

- I'm good with theory

- disclosure good/paraphrase bad, but I am obviously open to hearing the flip side just know it's an uphill battle

- I'm not as comfortable with K's so make sure to thoroughly explain them

debated in PF for 4 yrs

westlake '24, cmu '28

email: shikharkaul1@gmail.com

tech > truth

1. theory/k/prog

2. substance

i'll pretty much vote for any argument as long as it is extended and weighed

progressive debate is welcomed but please make sure you understand what you are reading

please use cross constructively or for fun - I almost only care about the flow

probability weighing needs to be warranted and can't be used to generate new impact d

fine with speed but won't flow off doc

people I agree with: aneesh kondagunturi, romeer pillay

important things

-please signpost

-extend key arguments

-do comparative weighing

-share evidence before speech/rebuttal

-show up to round ready to go

-dont steal prep

will boost speaks for making the round faster/more interesting - skipping gcx, sending evi before speech/rebuttal so no wasted time, reading prog that you understand, good strategy and clash, or just smart debating

feel free to ask me questions before round

Hey y’all!

I’m Anastasia/Ana – Westlake LD '23, Baylor Policy '27 (2A/1N in the '23-24 season, transitioned to a 2N/1A for '24-25)

In High School, I got to three bid rounds and went to TFA all four years, I was in elims Junior/Senior year.

If you're interested in debating in college, Baylor has a great team with a ton of resources! Email me if you're just scrolling through tab, or talk to me before/after round and I can connect you with the coaching staff.

Pronouns – she/her

General:

Please be nice to each other! Debate is a fun activity & should be treated as such, your opponents pronouns & triggers are non-negotiables. Safety > any round win ever. We are all human and deserve to be treated with the respect as such.

fine with speed just slow down on analytics, I flow on my laptop for reference.

please send all docs – prefer speech drop but email is anastasiaskeeler@gmail.com

In high school, I exclusively read the K post-sophomore year. Before that, I did soft-left policy debate, and throughout my career enjoyed going for T. I have not done any topic research and am not actively coaching high school. Please explain super specific link scenarios slightly more than you would with active coaches.

if you want more specifics of how I think about debate look to Holden Bukowsky's paradigm - they coached me for the majority of my career & we think about debate very similarly.

Specific thoughts:

policy:

I think policy debate is cool. A lot of nuanced debates have been super interesting to watch & be a part of, but the same 3 affs and disads on every topic gets boring. I love creative advocacies and a good impact turn debate.

Some of my favorite speeches to give are a 2n on an impact turn (spark and dedev being my go-tos)

Please, for the love of God, weigh. This largely applies to any novice rounds/ less experienced debaters – but regardless, 15+ seconds of impact calc will get you much higher speaks.

T/theory:

Once you get into more blippy/tricky shells I will be fairly lost, if you go for the shell I need a clear explanation of the abuse story and why I should vote on it/the norm it would create.

I don’t have defaults for paradigm issues – being in policy has made my threshold for justifications lower. That being said, don't assume I don't need justifications for DTA/D, or CI/reasonability, you just don't need to 5 point everything.

Ks:

This is what I do the most, I am the most comfortable evaluating this kind of debate & would love to judge this.

Familiar with just about everything. For reference, I went for cap on the aff and neg my senior year, grove as a 2n and 2a this season, and dabbled in Baudrillard, Setcol, Delueze, Disability (kolorova, mollow, etc) and Beller in high school.

Doing policy has raised my threshold for explanation significantly: I think a good portion of K debate can be done on the theory of power page using your offense to do line by line. Please make my life easy.

Phil:

I am familiar with a lot of ethical framing args and Phil positions. just explain everything and make sure that what you are saying actually makes sense - ie your ethic + meta ethic and how the framing operates in the round

That being said, the way that phil gets executed now is something I am infinitely less comfortable with, the one paragraph of framing and then a bunch of blips. I am going to need you to go slower & give more explanation for these positions.

Tricks:

I dont like these. If you read these i will probably sigh loudly. I can eval them but speaks will be low and i will be sad.

Have fun & be nice! Looking forward to judging y'all :)

Westlake 24/UT 28 - competed for four years of debate (pf)

make a speechdrop or email chain and drop docs before speech (preferably .docx not email text)

email: aneesh.kondagunturi@gmail.com

people I agree with: Romeer Pillay

i will evaluate nearly everything but have far less experience outside of policy and theory. would prefer to judge a good policy debate.

make rounds quicker. prep time ends when the doc is sent. marking docs comes out of the prep of the team marking the doc.

good with speed but i will clear you if i cannot understand you.

debate is a game of risk. this means investing time to make sure you're sufficiently winning the link debate is more important to me than weighing an argument you haven't won. whenever debaters end the weighing debate with "if we win a slight risk of this triggering, weighing means we win the round," i almost never agree. weighing like short circuits and time frame are generally only relevant when both arguments have a similar risk.

arguments that don't inherently clash each other need explicit weighing to avoid intervention. in theory debates but also in substance too many debaters think rereading their taglines is equivalent to analysis. you need to actually explain your arguments and why they matter in the back half. just saying a buzzword isn't an argument.

time spent on an argument in a close debate matters. i will always lean toward the team with longer analysis than a quick blip. this means round vision and collapsing is important.

extend case properly and clearly articulate which arguments you are going for/dropping. very low bar for extension on conceded arguments/turns.

i will intervene against any new positions in second final, but any other new arguments need to be pointed out for me to strike from my flow. this means that i will evaluate new first final responses absent the second speaking team pointing out that they were new.

please postround if you disagree with a decision. it's good for education and for me to be a better judge

Senior at Westlake HS. I do PF.

email chain: joshbce123@gmail.com

Flow judge, Tech > Truth, line-by-line.

1. Please, please, extend in summary and final focus. This means that you must explain the uniqueness, link, and impact of the argument. Not just mentioning the name of the contention.
2. Signpost clearly, e.g. on our first contention... on their third contention...
3. Use rebuttal to address the specific links of their case, don't just give general reasons why enacting the resolution is good or bad. You DO NOT need to extend your case in rebuttal.
4. I don't flow cross. If you have a good idea or if your opponents concede something mention it in your next speech.
5. Time yourselves.
6. Give comparative weighing. Don't just say we outweigh on magnitude, instead say our impact of x outweighs their impact of y.
7. No new responses to case in summary / final focus. Backline the responses that you made in rebuttal.
   
   
8. I'd rather you collapse in summary and final focus than spend 2 minutes extending 3 contentions.

Post round me if you like.

T/L

Hi, I'm Chloe

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the email chain - cskaustin2@gmail.com

LASA '23

Penn '27 (I don't debate in college but coach ld for Harker and policy for LASA)

TLDR

- Tech > Truth, if they drop an argument it's true, but you have to explain what it is and why it matters

- Impact calc is your friend and wins debates

- Your 2AR/2NR writes my ballot at the top

- Flow and do line by line

- I get we're coming back from online debate but that's no excuse to steal prep, it's just obvious now

- Above all, have fun and be nice to each other! Smiles make me smile and speaker points go up.

T (what's that)

I love T. I actually think this topic is pretty neg biased, but I can be convinced otherwise. I default to competing interpretations. Let's not read blocks at each other and do some line by line!

CPs (the only thing relevant for policy teams this year)

Go for it! I err neg on process and agent counterplans, but the aff is probably right about no international and private actor fiat. I used to be a big fan of consult NATO, so if you can make it competitive, more power to you. Some big school is inevitably gonna break some tiny-ass aff that does nothing, in which case go for a process CP (Sam I'm looking at you).

DAs (if you can find them)

I love a good CP/DA debate. PTX DAs always become a question of evidence quality. I'm totally down to have a DA throw down. Specific DA links are important, especially when this topic is filled with generics.

Edit: I take it back. I don't care if your DA links are specific on this topic. If you can find a coherent da, you're doing great.

Ks (you'll just have to figure out my hot takes)

Clash is an impact. Fairness is an impact.

The aff prob gets their plan. Links don't have to be to the plan but you need to explain why you get the links that you do.

Cap, Tech-O, and Set Col are what I used to read. I’ll listen to any K, but I’m not the best with high theory. I swear to god if someone says the word "Baudrillard" I'm going to vomit.

No, death is not good. No, I will not vote for any offensive arguments. If you're asking yourself if there should be a trigger warning there probably should be so that everyone involved can have a comfortable experience.

I'm realizing I think framework really does make the game work, so a K aff is probably an uphill battle but not unwinnable.

Framing

I have a slight bias towards extinction outweighs separate from util. I'm also super sympathetic to a util turns structural violence argument if it's specific.

Theory

Go off, err neg on everything.

I generally believe that infinite condo is good, if you're a novice reading some varsity team member's condo blocks, I get it, I did it my novice year, but obviously better to have your own blocks that you're familiar with and understand. (+0.1 if you say Sam made you do it).

I will vote on ASPEC, my favorite argument in debate, BUT ONLY IF IT'S DROPPED AND YOU IMPACT IT OUT. "They dropped ASPEC" isn't enough.

Hi there!

I’m a current debater at Westlake ('24 grad).

LARP: what I run. Make sure your framework makes sense and we're good. Be sure you can explain it well in cross. Do make sure you weigh and relate it back to the framework to make my job easier.

K/Phil: I don't expect this in novice but if you're going to run it make sure you understand. Keep it simple. Obv no identity Ks if you aren't that. Also I don't know much lit

Theory: please no friv in novice, that would be mean. But otherwise it's ok. I don't really do theory myself though.

Tricks: be real nobody is reading this in novice

Extend your arguments, blah blah blah, signpost well.

Be nice! This is novice, you’re here to have fun and practice. Don’t be racist or misgender people or anything.

I absolutely need the docs sent before the speech, but speed is fine if you’re decently clear. Just don't push it.

cl96246@eanesisd.net

any pronouns

Debater at LASA

For novices:

Do impact calculus, line by line, write my ballot for me. Explain the implication to winning your arguments, explain why evidence comparison matters.

email chain: alexandranlosoya@gmail.com

Westlake Public Forum and FX: two years

TAMU Speech and Debate currently

If you have any questions about my paradigm feel free to ask me!

PF Paradigm

IF SPREADING PLS SEND CASE :)

I understand FW, theory args, Kritiks, etc., just let me know beforhand if thats what you are reading so i can prepare! please keep the round clean, so it's easy to flow (Tell me where I'm flowing the arguments on their side/your side of flow) or else i may miss an argument, or get confused which could cost you the round.

*Weighing and not dropping responses are two of my biggest voters*

Tell me why I must prefer your argument over the opp. Public Forum sometimes feels very short, and when you are covering lots of areas it may be tough to give thorough explanations. An explanation of why your argument is more important than the opp, how it affects their case, and why i need to vote aff/neg will stick more in my memory than an argument that was thrown together and only mentioned for two seconds. especially when rounds get messy, extending this clean through the round if it's unresponded to can win you the ballot.

I will not evaluate arguments that are dropped—if you don’t respond to a card the opp makes and it becomes important in final focus i will have no reason to vote your contention if the opp consisely explains why their dropped response is very important to my voting. i will not evaulate the arg.

Please do not say anything offensive, racist, sexist, etc. I will drop speaks for this.

i LOVE cross—obviously let everyone speak, but please get involved! i will raise speaks and feel free to get a bit confrontational but not if it will harm anyone in the room

Write my ballot for me.. i may have done debate and still do but that does not mean i am going to help you at all with your case and arguments. write the ballot for me like i am a lay judge or i will just judge off whats on my flow.

tech > truth judge

Have fun in the round!

FX/DX Paradigm

Let me know if you have any questions at all when walking in i would be so happy to answer any of them!

based off of my experience in speech i feel like its very preformative even if you are nervous or start forgetting parts of your speech try to play it off and keep going. I do not get to see your prep only the topic, your time, and preformace so focus on that and having your speech flow smooth!

please do the correct walk for DX and FX it helps me know when you are switching to new points, conclusions, etc.

try to include all sources and names for your pieces of information in your speech so i can write them down and its easier for me to rank all opponents later so i can look back and re-read my notes to properly rank extempers

I do PF and DX for Westlake.

Extemp:

content> presentation

Please make a joke for your AGD

Presentation always helps, but I’m mostly judging you off of the quality of your arguments

PF:

tech>truth

I’m comfortable with progressive argumentation

I will give you at least 29.5s if you bring me food/a drink - my Starbucks order is an Irish cream cold brew

my email is mm85629@eanesisd.net

If you bully your opponents during cross, I will lower your speaks

If you say your opponent conceded everything you said when they literally frontline everything, I will give you a 25

Please don’t be annoying

Don’t be racist/sexist/ableist/homophonic/transphobic/etc.

Hi guys my name is Yara Mustafa and I'm an LDer from McNeil!

I would prefer to be on the email chain yaram.debate@gmail.com

Shortcuts:

Phil/K: 1

Larp: 2-3

theory : 3-4

Tricks: 4

Theory

Theory is not my strongest area of practice, but I understand and grasp all the steps and complexities of how theory works as a concept. Blippy and “sneaky” arguments blow over my head. Speed in theory is a big deal especially if it’s not in the doc, and I would appreciate it if you send your interp/counterinterp if it isn’t in the doc. Reasonability is defense and counter interps are offense. Friv theory is so yucky please don’t read it. I love 1ar shells

Phil/ Framework

This is my favorite style of debate, and I think there are so many ways to utilize phil in front of a wide array of judges. Many people hate phil debate, I genuinely have so much fun during a good phil round. Personally, I really like Deleuze, Rawls, Butler, Hobbes, and Realism. I also have experience answering different consequential frameworks, so by default I understand the intricacies of fw indicts on util and vice versa. In a framework debate it is very important to have a clear clash between how the different worlds function. For example if you read Util, justifying comparative worlds against a normative fw might be really useful in the end. I default epistemic confidence and truth testing unless directed otherwise. It's also important to have contextual responses as to why your opponents framing fails, and reasons to prefer yours. I think that hijacks and smart cross applications are really fun. TJFs are amazing and love them yayyy.

LARP

I have a lot of experience debating LARP but it is definitely not my area of expertise or my favorite. CPs and disads are very fun but they have to be heavily weighed and implicated out. I do think that in order to access your larp offense you have to win Util though. Counterplan theory is one thing that I normally need an over explanation of (textual and functional competition). I think that PICs are smart when read in round, but I do give more leeway to the aff when pics are bad is read. Perms and different types of perms against counterplans in general are needed.

Kritiks

I enjoy K framing debates alot and the utilization of the theory of power and the thesis of the kritik as responses to your opponents case. In general the Link and the alt of the kritik should be articulated well. The alt should be well explained and weighing should be done in general. A world of what the alt looks like should be articulated in a good manner. When talking about the ROB, make a clear indication of why your offense ow’s and why your opponent does not have access to that role of the ballot in the first place. Kaffs don't have to be topical, I think its a fun debate tbh. I also really think how you interpret the literature in the first place needs to be well fleshed out, so there's an explanation of the complexities of the K (ex if its ideal/non-ideal, ontology, violence). I really do like different literature but I am not familiar with the jargon of them. I have experience with Deleuze, Cap, Baudrillard (kinda), Psychoanalysis, set col, afro-pess, security, glissant, etc.

Tricks

I think tricks are fun when I am not the one debating against them!! It’s kinda awful to drown in a bunch of tricks so I do feel that tricks are gross. I never really read tricks very often, but I do think that articulation of the arguments and implications of how that argument truly functions is very important. I genuinely don’t understand some tricks though so I don’t really like hearing them round I think they are kinda bs.

Non-topical affs

I think Non-topical affs are super cool and I genuinely like hearing them, but I don’t read them at all. I’m familiar with normal kritik literature but over explanations are necessary for any specific nuance. I enjoy a good T/fw debate, and I love method debates!! I Appreciate a strategic and contextualized TVA. Having specific tvas rather than generalized tvas are key to having a good clash. Standards should be well articulated and the abuse story needs to be clear. As a response to Non-t affs, i have been learning about counter kritiks. I like optimism ks such as glissant which are cool responses to non-t affs.

VLD for Hays Y'all are my last round Im ever judging. Please have fun. read whatever you want but I forgot a lot. treat me like a lay judge.

westlake 24, won a couple tournaments and got 10 bids

email:romeerpillay@gmail.com

tech>truth

good for any arguments but won’t vote for incomplete ones. if there's anything to take away from my paradigm this is it. i will vote for any argument that is properly explained, and debate is ultimately up to the debaters. read whatever argument you want if you think you can do it well.

good with speed but will not flow off the doc, so make sure you're flowable

arguments are evaluated probabilistically. this means investing time to make sure you're sufficiently winning the link debate is more important to me than weighing an argument you haven't won.

won't evaluate new arguments in the back half of the round, however, these need to be pointed out explicitly in speech (excluding new args in second final, which i have to intervene and strike myself).

completely fine with postrounding and i'd encourage you to do so if you disagree with a decision. i think it's a good practice for competitors to understand what to improve and to incentivize judges to make good decisions.

feel free to ask any questions before round for clarification

people i agree with: aneesh kondagunturi (recommend reading this for slightly more detailed preferences)

Evidence - please read this section

prep time ends when the doc is sent

evidence must be sent in order in a doc before the speech

no new doc if you only entire cards were skipped - learn to flow

Hey, I'm Beah! (she/her)

Westlake '24

beahalison@gmail.com

I've been doing LD since my freshman year

In general, just be a decent human being. honor your opponents accommodation requests, give trigger warnings, don't misgender people

I'll evaluate anything tbh just make sure you extend and WEIGH

I have some hearing issues so make sure you're not whispering and if you can't spread well then just don't, be extra clear on tags and analytics throughout (it'd make me super happy if y'all sent me analytics!)--and speak on the right side of me, my left ear glitches out often

speaks-I'll boost your speaks if

-the number of words in your case is cleanly divisible by 19

-"do a 360 spin during a turn"-the more you do it the higher your speaks

-you play your favorite show's theme song during prep

-your favorite show's theme song is the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles theme song (don't lie i will be sad)

Larp-I'm good for larp, make sure you don't egregiously fumble the link chain, and don't assume that I know any common sense current events/political things because I probably don't. i know very little about this topic so extensions will be key. PLEASE make it very clear in the 2N/2AR exactly why I am voting for you, weigh, weigh, weigh!

K-this is what i usually read, non-T affs are cool, absolutely DO NOT read an identity k for a group that you do not identify as, especially pess, auto L if you do. silly K tricks are great

T/theory-very cool! I'm great with basic shells ex-condo, nebel, disclosure, etc. I'm good with friv theory just treat it like an actual argument with real implications

phil-I have a basic understanding of like Kant, deleuze, levinas, etc. I might not be the best for less basic phil but just make it clear how to weigh under your fw and don't just go off of buzz words and you should be golden

Tricks- if you want to go for it, sure, there's a good chance I won't vote on tricks tho so if you want me to you need to really explain why i should. tbh maybe just don't

Let me know if you have any questions!

Be the fire

Be the greedy

Add me to the email chain: NS99269@eanesisd.net

DO NOT be offensive or rude to your opponents in cross or any speeches. I will dock speaks if you make your opponent uncomfortable at any point in the round.

Make sure to fully explain your arguments as if I do not know anything about the topic. Keep the round clean please & tell me where I’m flowing - make sure to signpost in all speeches.

If an argument or response does not get touched throughout the round, make sure to bring it up in your speeches and explain why it matters in the round. If you want me to evaluate something said in cross, bring it up during your speech.

I’m fine with teams speaking fast but please be clear and don’t spread. Send a speech doc.

Write my ballot for me — where should I vote, why is your argument more important than your opponents, etc.

Don’t bring up new arguments in second summary, extend your contentions, weigh -> overall just the basics

Please weigh as soon as possible and actually EXTEND otherwise I will not evaluate them.

Try to come in prepared (try to have your preflows and materials ready before round starts) so we can end on time.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me any questions!!
Just try to have fun :)

Hello! I am so honored to be judging at this prestigious tournament.

I have been debating for 3 years now at Westlake in PF.

I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters end up talking more about how the debate is going down rather than the actual issues at hand. Try your best to avoid debating debate and debate the resolution.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Debate all 4 years throughout highschool for westlake on TFA and NSDA circuit (Westlake PS freshman and sophmore year Westlake SS jr and sr year)

Some general stuff:

Pls don't be racist/homophobic/sexist in round if you make debaters uncomfortable in round with this stuff auto L 25

Tech>Truth - you could argue the sun is blue and I won't intervene

Conceded arguments have 100% probability

If you are spreading send doc + slow down on analytics

Substance

Before I look at cases I look to weighing first. On weighing if both teams give weighing metaweigh tell me why yours supercedes theirs.

2nd rb has to frontline.

I'm cool with evaluating any Fw just try to read it as early as possible esp if you have pre-fiat stuff in there.

If it does come down to it and no team has offense I default neg, but if you think it's getting close to that just read default warrants.

Also pls extend your arguments it makes me a lot more comfortable evaluating your arguments if you have a clean extension

If you collapse on a turn make sure it was implicated in rebuttal and not js a one line blip

Progressive

Theory

Theory is cool I ran a bunch of disclosure in highschool, but I won't hack for it just because I believe in it.

I don't default anything so it's up to you to read warrants to reasonability/counter interps

If you are debating clear novices that have never had experience with theory just don't run it just have an educational substance round

Kritiks

I debated against some K's but never read them so am not super comfortable evaluating them run at your own risk.

If you have any questions about my paradigm please don't hesitate to ask before round.

Email chain: valentin.thevoz@gmail.com; Please CC me in any email chain you create during the round.

I debated all 4 years of high school and have a deep understanding of Public Forum and World Schools, as well as a comprehensive understanding of Congress and Extemp.

If you have any issues or questions with my paradigm please ask me about it before the round begins.

Public Forum:

Tech > Truth

I am what you would consider a flay judge.

In terms of speed, I can understand and flow most speeds, if you are speaking too fast or you are not clear enough I will just not flow whatever I did not understand so speak fast at your own risk.

I do evaluate theory but I do not like the theory debate. If your opponent wins the content debate and you win the theory debate I will most likely vote for content. Unless the infraction gives the other team a distinct advantage in the content debate.

I evaluate Nuke war arguments.

Please signpost correctly.

Do not be condescending.

IF YOU WEIGH CORRECTLY AND YOUR OPPONENT DOESN'T YOU ARE MOST LIKELY GOING TO WIN!

Do not argue with me after the round, if I think you lost then that's it, any attempts to change my mind are futile.

World Schools:

World schools was my favorite event to compete in and I have a lot of experience with it.

I WILL DOCK POINTS IF YOU BREAK THE RULES (Protected time, etc.).

Make sure you are timing your speeches as well as your opponent's speeches so that you know when protected time starts/ends.

Do not be too aggressive with your POIs, a good rule of thumbs is to wait 20s before asking another POI.

Do not be condescending.

Extemp:

I only did Extemp one time during high school so I am not extremely familiar with this event.

I will vote on your speaking style and your arguments, extemp formalities such as the speaker's triangle aren't really that important with me, just be confident and have a good posture.

I will not fact check your arguments unless they are blatantly false.

Make it clear when you are transitioning points.

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