Add blakebole@yahoo.com for docs/chains

Did 4 years of Varsity PF at Newsome (‘23), competed at Barkley Forum, Bluekey, Sunvite, NSDA and CFL Nationals, Harvard, etc. Bidded for TOC, overall well versed in PF and LD. Currently compete in Varsity LD for Florida State University.

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

TLDR:

Flow judge. Most speed is good w me, prefer email chains for fast cases. Prog debate will be considered but make sure K is topical and only read theory if a real violation has been made. Tech over truth assuming links are well substantiated. Keep substance topical and understand that the farther an impact strays from the resolution, the stronger your link chain needs to be for me to buy that arg. Show respect to your opponents.

If both teams agree, you can change anything in my paradigm for the round (This includes lay vs flow, tech vs truth, weighing preferences, speaker points, how I evaluate prog, and any other nuances in debate)

PF

Speeches

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

Public Forum:

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. I’ll say “Clear” up to 2 times while you are speaking if I can’t understand you, by the third time I’ll stop flowing. 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. Frontlines brought up after 2nd summary won’t be flowed, that’s far too late in a round to be bringing up new arguments.

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 beleive 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 weren’t 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.

LD / 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 the more common stuff (cap, sec, neocol, etc) but anything beyond that I likely won’t know much about. 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. LD is fine. just clarify why a perm does or doesnt work if a perm is in play

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

Other

Mavericks get 5 mins prep

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. To prove you read this far, address me as “king slime” in FF. Will boost speaks for you and your partner.

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, it’s not that hard.

Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. I will not flow anything said over time, so keep this in mind.

Feel free to ask questions about decision when I give a verbal RFD, if necessary I’ll respond on email but my feedback likely will be worse.

Teams that run really funny frivolous theory, or find a way to work in creative and humorous references into their speeches will be added to the Paradigm Hall of Fame.

Have fun :)

Paradigm HoF:

x

x

x

x

x

AddjpotooleDB@gmail.comfor docs/chains

Did 4 years of PF at Newsome (‘23)

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

If both teams agree, you can change anything in my paradigm for the round (This includes lay vs flow, tech vs truth, weighing preferences, speaker points, how I evaluate prog, and any other nuances in debate). Just let me know before round starts

PF

I’m going to default to being flow because thats the type of round I would want to judge. Refer to the section above if you want me to be lay or tech.

Flow Paradigm

As a flow judge I’m going to be voting off of the line by line, but won’t give technical losses like not extending all Defense is sticky. Collapse please. Bring up your voters in both summary and final.

Weigh & Meta Weigh. I firmly believe that meta weighing is the easiest way to the ballot, and quite often the team that gives the best meta-weighing will win. Emphasize this heavily in FF. I default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity

Mavericks get 6 mins prep

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. Say “Time will start on my second word” to let me know you’ve read all of this so far (You’ll get a boost in speaks). Also + speaks if you disclose on the wiki.

I won’t flow cross but I’ll pay attention to what is said. If the round is an absolute toss up to me I will vote based on who I thought looked stronger in cross. Treat cross more for the performance aspect of debate rather than the argumentation. If you feel you won a point in cross, tell me in a speech.

Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. I will not flow anything said over time, so keep this in mind

Everything under this is specifically if teams decide they want me as a tech judge

Speeches

2nd Rebuttal should always frontline & I won’t accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. This threshold is low, though- as long as you can briefly mention your response you can expand upon it in

Summary Stuff: Its ok with me if you don’t want to read out all if the cards word for word you use in case that you want to extend. Just say “Extend our C2, specifically Depetries 21 and Velasco 13.” I only prefer this for the sake of spending more time on the clash of responses rather than just restating them. I personally don’t require weighing in summary, but it wouldn’t hurt you to do so. Weighing in 1st summary should be responded to in 2nd summary. Any arg not extended in summary can’t be used in FF.

FF I expect the same from both teams, simply tell me why you won and they lost. Heavily lean into weighing. If no meta weighing happens, I'll default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity. As long as you give even a little meta weighing I’ll buy into it until the other team responds.

Ask your opponents before you spread. I can personally handle 300ish wpm but if you are going 250+ send a doc.

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 the more common stuff like cap and neocol, but anything beyond that I likely won’t know much about. As long as you explain the literature clearly you should be ok with me.

Theory: I'm familiar with how to evaluate it. If there is a legitimate violation, read it the speech after the violation has occured. I default to competing interps but can be told otherwise. Also, don’t read anything on round reports.

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

MOST IMPORTANT PART: If you run some funny case/theory, you will likely lose the round, but will receive 30 speaks, I will ask you to sign my flow, and you will be entered in the paradigm Hall of Fame.

Hall of Fame

x

x

x

x

x

I am a lay judge. I try to vote off the flow, but I am not well versed in technical or meta-theory debate (I also just don't respect that game). Please avoid debate jargon. If I don't understand what you are saying, it is harder for me to vote on it. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims, but it is not always needed for logical arguments. I want you to sign my ballot for me. If I am left with a confusing round and have to infer things for myself, it will likely not go in your favor. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.