anli+debate@u.northwestern.edu for the email chain

Hello! I'm a public forum competitor from the Chinese circuit with over 100 rounds of judging experience, over 150 rounds of competitive experience, and more than three years of experience providing coaching services in one way or another (e.g., preparing research briefs, judging mock debate rounds, etc.). I've collated probably 500,000 words of cards in my debate career. In total, I have more hours in PF debate than my entire Steam library combined.

If you were coached in the Chinese circuit, either read and understand my entire paradigm if you want a fair chance of winning or strike me. It’s your choice.

Concise Version PF 2023

1. If you use clashes you'll probably lose. Winning a clash NEVER equals winning a debate, even if you win more clashes. Instead of using this lazy way, I expect all teams to collapse in summary (how you do this is up to you) which is gonna teach you how to actually critically think instead of just read a script.
2. I also expect all teams to weigh in summary
3. 2nd Rebuttal MUST frontline unless you read theory to justify why not (which skews your time even more, just frontline)
4. I will ignore you in cross
5. If you don't READ (as in, SAY OUT LOUD) the author AND year when introducing your evidence, I'll write on my RFD that you had ZERO evidence. Don't even bothering contesting this, I write down the year and an abbreviation of the author the second you say it so just get good
6. Extensions must have author OR author and year
7. Traditional PF debaters are statistically more likely to lose because of how much I dislike traditional PF debate
8. I can handle spreading but am also open to spreading theory
9. I'll vote on new theory added in second final focus if abuse is severe enough

Before the round starts, you have the option and opportunity to tell me four things, all of which I highly encourage:

1. Flow preference. On paper or digital? If digital, do you want me to do it on Google Sheets and share it with you after the round? If on paper, do you want me to scan the flow and give you a copy after the round? If offline and you want me to flow on paper, will you provide the paper? Keep in mind that my digital flows often have columns dedicated to the issues I have with your arguments, e.g. "doesn't engage", so these are quite useful to see what I interpreted correctly and incorrectly.
2. What color do you want to be on my flow? If I'm flowing on paper, I'll give you options. If digital, you can choose any of 16777216 colors, but keep in mind choosing an unreadable color means I'll drop all of your arguments. I'm serious. If it helps, my spreadsheets are always in light mode, so I encourage choosing a darker color (standard red, blue, green, orange, purple, magenta, black, and cyan are all safe options).
3. If you want feedback after the round, do you want it orally or do you want me to give it to you later via email/text/snail-mail/etc? The latter allows for way more detail but I might... forget some semantics of the round
4. Pronouns

"Pre Theory" (not enforcing these rn)

The following two shells are presumed as true by me before the round even starts, without anyone needing to read them. This is to make the round more inclusive and fair and reduce timesucks. The default voter for all of these shells is "drop the debater."

1. TW theory. Teams must read trigger warnings for arguments that involve violence, r*pe, gore, transphobia, homophobia, etc. including an opt out. I'll exclude broader "death" from this because those are common and rather vague, but if a team believes death should be included as well, you can read theory to implicate this as the case.
2. Pronouns theory. You must use they/them for all debaters and judges in the round unless specified otherwise. If you violate this on accident, simply correct yourself, but if not, I will drop you.

Tech vs Truth

I want to say I'm tech over truth but objectively I'm split 80/20. If you read a crazy argument like (insert your argument), there are two possibilities of how I interpret it:

1. If you have a lot of evidence, even if it's fake, as long as you read the source and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I'll basically take your best case scenario. Once I voted for extinction in elims (and it was a 2-1 for them) because they had reasonable evidence and the opposing engagement with the scenario was inadequate. But if you get caught, you autolose (see evidence ethics).
2. If your links are assertions, expect me to not buy a single one.

Basically, if you have cards, I'm tech over truth; if you read an assertion, I'm truth over tech.

Speech Burdens

1. Second rebuttal must frontline unless you read a theoretical reason why not. Summary must extend defense. Impacts to be weighed must be in both summary and final focus in order for me to consider them, including the entire link chain + all cards. This is to incentivize all debaters to collapse.
2. Final focus must both (1) match summary and (2) have every single impact you want me to vote on. To have an impact doesn't just mean extending the impact, it also includes extending all responses to turns, all links, all internal links, and uniqueness – and all must be carded.
3. If second rebuttal doesn't frontline, your defense is sticky through first summary. In general, all defense (turns, delinks) are sticky until responded to. However, all defense needed to win my vote must be extended into final focus (this generally forces the second speakers to collapse, which is good imo).
4. I will ignore both teams during cross.
5. When you extend impacts in summary, you must extend the entire link chain including all cards.

Evidence Ethics

Super Important. MUST READ. According to the NSDA's official rules found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf: (1) if you add ellipses to your card, you autolose with 0 speaks; (2) if you distort even a single card, even unintentionally, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (3) if you can't produce a card or website for requested evidence, EVEN ONCE, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (4) if you clip your card and you get caught, you autolose with 0 speaks. I'll expand on this with two points: (1) if your opponent wants your source and you only send a URL and exclude author/year, you autolose though I'll still give you speaks; (2) if both teams violate these guidelines, the first team to violate them loses. And for the record, (1) if the tournament you're at doesn't let me give you zero speaks, I'll be marking you as having FORFEITED THE ROUND; (2) this applies to ALL DEBATERS, even those who are novices or who did so on accident because the only way you will ever learn from a mistake is confronting it head on.

Pulling from the same link, if you believe your opponent is falsifying or severely cherry-picking evidence, you have the right to stop the round AT ANY TIME, including during an opponent speech. If your opponent is indeed lying about the evidence, the round immediately ends and you win. If your opponent is NOT lying, the round immediately ends and you LOSE.

Three more definitional things:

1. Cards. If you don't read the author and year on first introduction, it's not a card.
2. Extensions. If you don't read the author on extension, it's not an extension.
3. Cites. If you don't send author, year, and place where somebody could find the source (URL, DOI, title of the book), it's not a citation.

Rhetorical Choices

1. If you use abusively harmful rhetoric (e.g., racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist) intentionally, i.e., you knowingly extend it, it's part of your card, tagline, etc., I will autolose you even if your opponent doesn't point it out. If it's by mistake and you realize you've said something wrong and correct it, no penalty.
2. If you say "him or her" or "he or she" or something instead of a gender neutral pronoun I will drop you for it.

Frameworks

1. If your framework doesn't have a warranted justification, I'll drop your framework. If neither side does, I'll use modified CBA: extinction always comes first, structural violence second, and then util.
2. CBA doesn't need a warrant

Theory

Three things to say about theory:

1. Theory ALWAYS comes first. NO exceptions.
2. If your theory shell doesn't have reasonable justifications (in the standards section or somewhere reasonable), I'll consider voting on it, but I'll really hate you for it and I'll dock your speaks.
3. Disclosure. Please do it. But if you read reasons why not, then I don't care.

Speed

I can comprehend spreading and will say "clear" when it's too fast, except when banned by the tournament. If you decide to spread, there are three things to note:

1. If your opponent reads "speed bad" or "speed theory" or "clear theory" or whatever and you don't clear, you're going to lose.
2. You must give me a speech doc if you're going to go above 300wpm otherwise I will visibly roll my eyes at you, stop flowing, and autolose you (the exception is if you're really clear with your reading and I can't tell you're going so fast).
3. In circuits where speech docs/disclosure are uncommon, you alone will bear full consequences if I decide to stop flowing due to speed.

Speaks

I start at a 28.0 and go up or down based on strategic choices. If you extend every impact into summary, expect your speaks to dip. If you collapse better than I ever could, expect your speaks to shoot up. If you want a bonus:

• Bring me a soda (if offline) and you'll get a 0.3 point bonus
• If you physically turn every time you say turn, you get a 0.3 speak bonus
• If your virtual background (if online) is related to, relevant to, and boosts the rhetorical appeal of your argument, you get a 0.3 speak bonus.
• If you refer to every single author (repeat, every single one) with they/them pronouns, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus. My ears are basically tuned to he/him or she/her because of my own identity, so I'll know if you use the wrong pronoun. The exception is if you have additional evidence to show one of your authors' pronoun preferences, such as their Twitter page.
• If your summary or final focus starts with a funny joke, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus.

The max bonus per round, per speaker is 1.2 points for offline tournaments and 0.9 points for online tournaments. This means you still need good strategy for a 30.

Non-PF Argumentation in PF

The following are my stance(s) on non-traditional arguments/styles commonly seen in LD/CX:

1. Plans. PF rules state that plans are banned, but I... disagree. If the resolution is really broad, I don't see why you can't have a plan. But you need to at least try to prove probability. A super absurd, stupid plan won't fly in PF because that's not what this format is for. So reading "CP: The USFG should give everyone Spotify Premium" just isn't going to convince me. At least try to be topical. Can't say I'm opposed to a plan/cp of something that's actually likely to happen.
2. NIBs. If you can execute it well, sure. Remember not to drop it in summary or final focus.
3. PICs. If the resolution is super wacky like uh uh uh "Resolved: The United States federal government should legalize all illicit drugs." and you read a states CP, I really don't see why I shouldn't give you credit for it. As long as you prove (a) your CP is probable, (b) it's exclusive, and (c) it outweighs, I'm not against giving you credit for PICs.
4. Ks. Honestly why not? As long as it's coherent, I'll give you credit for kritiks. However, if you read some niche philosophy K that I'm not familiar with, you risk the entire argument flying over my head, and if that happens, you're taking responsibility.

Finally, I won't memorize the things I write in my paradigm – just know that I'll enforce certain points more often than others and be more lenient depending on the tournament I'm at/round quality/etc. And, if you game my paradigm to win rather than become a better debater, you'll be the one who regrets it.

I'm a high school senior in China with a long list of awards that I got by spreading progressive debate to a mostly traditional circuit. That means I like progressive arguments. I’m generous with high speaks but the prerequisite is following good debate etiquette.

PF

Don't have time to read? Here's the condensed version:

1. Second rebuttal should frontline.
2. Everything in FF must be in summary. This will win or lose you the round. If you read the winning impact in final focus without extending it through summary, I'm not voting on it.
3. Extensions must have author and year.
4. If I CAN make a decision after summary, I will.
5. If you make bigoted comments that single out any minority even once during the debate, your speaks are capped at 20.
6. My default framework is "extinction comes first, then poverty and deaths, then econ, then non-quantified impacts."

Full paradigm

1. I don’t flow crossfires. I listen and write down stuff if it’s SUPER important, but I’m not going to take detailed notes. Therefore, if you ask a question in crossfire, extend it to the next speech.
2. Frameworks need justification. Asserting “CBA” is okay, but saying “human rights” without giving me a reason means I’ll default to CBA.
3. Teams that use framework strategically will get a +1 speaks boost.
4. Second rebuttal should frontline. Respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal because otherwise speaking second gives you a huge advantage.
5. Summary must collapse. If you extend 7 arguments, theory, a K, and a counterplan into summary, I’ll gladly vote on any of these impacts but your speaks will suffer.
6. Everything in FF must be in summary. If you extend an impact from rebuttal, you have to explain why – for example “first summary didn’t cover it” – but even then, if you think it can win you a debate, extend it into summary anyways and say your opponents dropped it. If you don’t extend a piece of evidence with the AUTHOR NAME attached to it, I won’t give you full credit for that impact; similarly, if you just extend the terminal impact without extending the warrant, you won’t get full credit.
7. Meme cases or cases that I enjoy listening to will generally get +1 speaks.
8. If I CAN make a decision after summary, I will. And I’ll be writing my ballot during grand crossfire. I’ll listen to both Final Focuses, but the chance I change my mind is low.
9. I’m stricter in elims than I am in prelims. If you don’t extend evidence in prelims, it’s alright for me to extend it for you, especially in novice divisions (your speaks will suffer). But in elims I’m not doing any work for you.
10. If you talk too fast I won’t flow your speech, but keep in mind “too fast” is 350wpm, not the normal PF 200-250.
11. If crossfire makes me mad at one team, that decreases the chance I vote for you, so don’t be overly aggressive or talk over your opponents. This will likely never be the deciding factor because I’m probably not paying very much attention, but if it’s clear you’re being abusive, that’s when your speaks will start to suffer.
12. If you make bigoted comments that single out any minority even once during the debate, your speaks are capped at 20, or whatever the minimum score I can give is. I do not care if it was "an accident." I will give you zero speaks if I'm allowed to. I will report you to tab. Cases that are rhetorically violent where your argument depends on another's suffering will lead to double zeros or double minimums.
13. If you want a 30, all cards must have author and year when first introduced and at least author upon every single extension. Leaving out this even once will result in a max score of 29.

Rubric

I start at a 28.5 in my head and add/subtract points in my head. I only roughly know where you stand, and where you stand relative to your opponents.

+ good strategy

+ properly extended cards

+ off time road maps

+ super good crossfire questions

+ amazing summaries

+ if your final focus changes my mind

– poor strategy

– if you abuse not extending cards

– bigotry (capped at 20)

– going for too many arguments in summary

– not weighing in summary