King Update:

Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for teams that don't send all case and rebuttal evidence before the speech

I debated for four years on the national circuit and now coach for Westlake

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: ilanbenavi10@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us

Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments

I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

Part III - Weighing

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments

FW:

I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.

Hi! I'm Lori :)

email: loricui6314@gmail.com

• a few years of pf experience
• flow judge
• keep your link chains clear and organized + explain in the last speeches
• if you don't extend your impacts in the last two speeches, i will not count them in the round
• any speaking speed works fine for me, but be considerate of your opponents.
• please frontline!!!!
• love a good clash
• no theory/k
• spreading is rly lame
• i will check ev if needed
• be a good debater. don't be rude or your speaks will bash you later
• if you want high speaks: send docs.
• have fun!

hi!

I'm Tanveer. I've done quite a bit of PF, basically ur typical flow/tech>truth judge. i forget to time consistently. please time.

email is tanveerdeol80@gmail.com

if there's smth i missed or you don't understand just ask fr

important things:

1) i can deal with speed fine, just be clear

2) please weigh, like please. y'all need to basically write out my rfd in your last two speeches and show me clearly why you want me to prefer your args over theirs. SCOPE IS NOT REAL WEIGHING.

3) i have like the most basic understanding of theory, i'm not the biggest fan of it but i will evaluate it if ran well and if it actually adds something to the debate/points out a substantial abuse. if it does neither, i discourage you from running it

4) don't be overly rude, i will destroy your speaks. get nuked pr much

5) frontline (job of the opponent to not let them bring it up again, like i will evaluate smth that is dropped and brought up again if the opponent does not clearly state "they dropped/drop ___" or "they drop our responses") it is your discretion on where you want to frontline, like i won't force you to frontline in second rebuttal or smth but if the opponent brings up the fact you dropped smth in rebuttal then it's too late frfr

6) signpost (give offtime roadmaps iyw, just don't let me get lost)

7) i will never call for cards unless both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of ev

8) have a clear narrative, be consistent with what you are saying and defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum). don't run args that r contradictory or just weird, have good strats

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com.

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Hello My Name is Judge Forde and I have been judging debate for 3 years. I have been apart of the debate community for 4 years, where I started as a coach during my last years of High School. I mainly Judge Public Forum and I am willing to learn more about other competitions. Most of my tournaments have been through New York while others were not to far from New York. I am proud to be apart of these competitions and I look forward to Judging more Tournaments. Thank you for Welcoming me Aboard.

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

about me

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

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

some of my influences that my views align with are: gavin serr, zach dyar, nyla crayton, devon weis, chris thiele, and arjun maheshwari

basics

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

wear whatever you want

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

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

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

evidence

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

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

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

back half

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

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

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

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

theory

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

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

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

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

t

- yea ill vote off it

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

k

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

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

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

hi i’m emilio clear springs 25’

add 2 chain pls emiliogarza525@gmail.com

ive done circuit ld + policy and have made it to bid rounds / got speaker points in both

my ideological standing have changed since switching over to policy this last year

Quick Prefs

K - 1 (Setcol, Futurism(s), Pessimism(s), Psycho, Cap, Etc)

Larp - 1

TFW - 1

Theory - 2 (Condo, PICS Bad, just not frivolous)

K POMO - 2 (Baudy, Other white pomo men)

Phil + Tricks - 4/Strike (k/identity tricks 2) - i’ll try i’ll be lost

K- Favorite arg on aff and neg - in 3 years only like 2 of my 2nrs (in both policy and ld) wernt setcol - winning TOP is key - yes you can kick the alt if u r winning framing + links - link work is lacking in most teams i prefer a collapse on 1/2 links you are winning in the 2nr - k v k is my favorite but can get messy pls just stick to your order

for larper - yes i will vote on extinction o/w - ontology false etc if won - ive had enough debates to know when someone is winning - go for link turn / fiat good interps best strat probably easiest to win

for non black pessimism - it is weird and odd i’ll vote for you but probably turned by like just any competition ivi or most pess authors work - best staying away ill lower speaks

Larp- so fun, switching to policy i can enjoy a good larp debate - pls weigh - plank counterplans with more than 3 planks prob are abusive but i can be persuaded otherwise! also more than 6 condo is probably abusive and will have a harder time changing my mind! - aspec is boring but ill vote on it

Theory- enjoy a good theory debate that’s not frivolous (spec etc) - pls weigh standards - more open to non black disclosure practices but anything is up for debate - also policy t debates r fun be as nit picky as u want - if u pull it off i’ll give goood speaks

TFW - appreciate tfw teams that aren’t racist/sexist etc… tfw is fun answer impact turns disads and have a clear ballot story!!! - tvas are best strat along with tfw tricks (limits da, ballot pic hidden inside, etc)

Speaks- If u annoy me u will get low speaks ( condescending, etc) but other than that i’ll give good speaks i start out at 28.5 go up and down - speaks theory is no - be clear pls….. i can handle clear speak not jumble your speaks will show it - love a good low point win

Debate PF at Strake 2021-2025 - please add me to the doc: guodaniel3@gmail.com

For MSTOC LD:

Do what you do best - go as fast as you want and be respectful, kind, and fun!

Policy - 1

K - 2

Theory/T - 2/3

Phil - 5

Tricks - 5

I debate PF so err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T. Not good for high phil/extremely uncommon K.

PF:

Tech> Truth, go as fast as you want and read whatever you want.

Cleanest link into best weighed offense, but arguments must have coherent extensions - uniqueness, link, impact.

Impact Calc and Backhalf Thoughts: (Stolen from Ishan's Paradigm)

I assess probability largely based on if you are winning your argument. However, arguments don't necessarily start at 100%. You establish probability through evidence and explanation. Probability matters, especially when magnitudes are similar (e.g., extinction). If probability weighing becomes new defense, call it out.

Extensions are yes/no. Extend, definitely, but I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. If something is conceded, my threshold drops significantly. Nit-picky details become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically,there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.

Link turns without uniqueness are defense. Uniqueness responses can zero a turn's offense, but remember that the "turn" then becomes defense. Even then, generally speaking,link > uniqueness.

By default,I presume neg/con.

Not good for PF K's w/o alts, poor evidence ethics, or any sort of -isms

I am a lay judge.

General

Please keep your own time and keep me updated on prep.

Respect me and your opponents.

Enjoy your debate round.

Speech & Rebuttal

Signpost! Make sure I know where you are during your speeches to keep my flow clean.

Please no spreading.

Clarity is key.

Make sure everything is warranted.

Frontline in 2nd response or it's considered dropped. The term “frontlining” refers toresponding to your opponent's responses to your case.

Summary/Final Focus

No completely new arguments in summary or final focus.

Extend everything you want me to evaluate into summary.

Weighing should be comparative. Please tell me why your weighing mechanisms should be preferred.

kritiksarecheating@gmail.com

Sage 24

UC Berkeley 26

TL;DR: I am the Walmart version of Patrick Fox.

Messed around in the magical land of Lincoln Douglas Debate for 2 years, qualified to the TOC both times. 6 career bids. Dabbled in policy with Laura from Carnegie.

I was coached primarily by Brett Cryan, Aidan Etkin, Bryce Sheffield, and Pat Fox.

My best friends in the activity were Sterling Utovac, William Trinh, and Niranjan Deshpande. I am intellectually indebted to Pat and Sterling for being the two biggest influences on how I think about debate.

My favorite judges were Holden Bukowsky, Dylan Jones, David Dosch, Elmer Yang, DKP, Nick Fleming, and Tajaih Robinson.

1. General

"The state of judging in LD is an existential threat to the activity. Judges routinely intervene. Flowing seems to disappear beyond "2" on the pref sheet." - agastya

The most important thing to know is that I see judging as a privilege, not an obligation. Whatever you have to say - be it death good, Baudrillard, or the politics DA - will receive my full attention. We're all committed to the game, we all take time out of our lives to be here and compete in the activity. I remember the frustration of getting judge screwed. I'll try not to do that to you.

From pat's paradigm---

"That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster."

I flow on my laptop, but will not have the doc or other tabs open while you are speaking or while I am making my decision. What you say is what I get down.

2. Ground rules

1. Respect me and your opponent. Ad homs do not get flowed - they get your speaks capped at a 26. Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc gets you reported to tab.

2. Do not misgender or deadname people.

3. Clipping, ev ethics, etc. I will stop the round when an accusation is made and make my decision. The loser gets an L20, the winner gets a W29. "Strawmans" and similar are arguments that should be made as rehighlightings of evidence, not as ev ethics challenges.

4. The aff has the burden of proof and the neg has the burden of rejoinder.

5. Speech times, prep time, and the way I evaluate the round do not change. Offense > defense, but having both is better.

6. "Debate is a game that requires dropped arguments to be evaluated as true in order to function. That means I will vote on anything sans racism, sexism, etc" - aidan etkin

7. "Clipping tags has not been, is not, and will never be a thing. If your opponent cannot flow, they should lose. If your judge cannot flow or thinks you've clipped tags because they flow off the document, they should be struck. Anyone who thinks you need to verbally say "skip this card" is unqualified to judge the debate." - iva liu

3. Thoughts on specific arguments

A. Kritiks/K affs

I read K affs/Ks for most of my career and thought a lot about these arguments. I am better for K debaters that are technical, do line-by-line, and make smart cross-applications of their theory of power, and worse for K debaters that rely on grandstanding, edgy rhetoric, and minimal technical engagement.

I'm frustrated by the way a lot of framework debates play out in LD (probably because of time constraints). These debates often end up being shallow, underimplicated, and without a terminal impact or weighing that decides how I should implicate scholarship.

Links to the plan are good. Plan focus and delete the plan are probably better framework interps than middle-ground, but I can be persuaded to vote for any of the three.

K 2nrs tend to underexplain their theory of power and do subpar link analysis in favor of vacuous rhetoric and grandstanding. Link turns case+alt solves it are heavily underutilized in LD (probably as a consequence of the way K debate has evolved and diverged from policy). Do more of this and I will be happy.

I lean neg on T-framework (debates about the plan are probably good) but can be persuaded relatively easily to vote aff in these debates. Impact turning framework offense is probably more persuasive than a counterinterpretation. Procedural fairness >> skills >>> clash.

B. Disad

I was in a reasonably high proportion of da/case debates. 2nrs should be technical with minimal handholding on link story (2 sentences is more than sufficient) but very heavy on turns case analysis and DA outweighs.

The link controls the direction of uniqueness. Even if the chance that Ukraine aid happens is low now, if passing the aff zeroes that, I will still vote neg. The logical extension of this is that uniqueness is not a yes/no question, but generally a sliding scale (especially in the context of politics DAs).

Evidence quality matters. A lot. Reading a card that says nothing will get LESS from me than a smart analytical argument. It often takes less time too. I will read evidence (even if not explicitly asked to) to verify that what you are saying about your evidence is what it actually says, but I will not arbitrarily intervene and do work for you or your opponent by making decisions in a vacuum about who's card is better.

A lot of DAs are good at the link level, bad at the internal link level. US pullout from Iraq -> Saudis get mad is probably true, but Saudis get mad -> they start arms racing with Iran is a more questionable claim. 1ARs should point these things out more.

"Debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting" - Scott Brown

C. Topicality

I don't really have many opinions/gripes to complain about here. Counterdefining words in the topic is good, ev comparison is good, semantics > pragmatics is probably a true argument. Definition comparison should be an exceptionally large part of the 2AR/2NR.

D. Counterplans

Probably have thought the least about these arguments, but I still feel reasonably competent at judging these debates.

Process counterplans are probably cheating (lol) but I think there are many persuasive responses to the reasons neg teams articulate for why they are bad. Do not find process CPs bad or condo particularly convincing at all. A world where we restrict the neg to 1 CP or the squo would probably spike aff win rates by a ridiculous margin.

Function + text > function > text. Functional competition is the way policymakers actually do it. Textual competition has never made much sense to me at all. I'm not sure why changing "should" to "ought" or vice versa makes the counterplan compete/not compete.

Debaters should think a lot more about the quality of evidence for a lot of process CPs. The authors of a lot of these articles are writing in the context of legal hypotheticals and often hasten to explain that anybody who tried these things in the real world would be patently insane. Letting the solicitor general, courts, or whatever make decisions about how the military works or whether UBI should be implemented would probably collapse the entire US government and it's legal, institutional, and historical legitimacy. Aff teams should say these things more.

Intrinsic perms. Silly arguments but I can be persuaded to vote for them. Limited intrinsicness probably good, full intrinsicness (might be?) bad. Haven't thought a lot about this one, so I'll update this later.

Advantage counterplan+DA is a fun strategy, but debaters should write actual planks. "Significantly increase diplomatic assurances" is not a real argument. How? Where? Who? This is not to say that planks have to be paragraphs long, but that there is a level of specificity that is necessary. Truf wrote a good article about this. I'll link it if I remember.

E. Tricks, Phil, Theory

I'm better for substantive phil than you might think. I am majoring in philosophy in college and have thought extensively about this literature base (albeit outside of debate). Fully carded kant, skep, etc are all things I will vote on.

I'm less good for hidden "tricks", aprioris, "truth-testing", or other LD silliness. I don't think most of these are complete arguments and my threshold for a response is exceptionally low, although I'll still vote on them. The only argument I won't vote on is probably eval, because extension of it triggers a contradiction.

4. Speaks

These are pretty arbitrary, but I'll try to create a consistent scale here.

30---I think you will win the NDT

29.9-29.6---I think you will win the tournament

29.5-29.2---I think you will be in late elims

29.1-28.8---I think you will break

28.7-28.4---I think you will go 3-3

28.3---27.8---Go mess around in JV for a bit

27.5 and below---You did something morally/ethically wrong

5. Closing thoughts

Debate well and have fun.

Hoon Ko

Philosophy:

I am a more old school judge. I will be open to all arguments but those I am not familiar with, if the debaters could explain fully their arguments, warrants, links, it would help me to judge the round fairly and completely. Also, I may not flow all your arguments if you go full speed - if you can slow down a bit, I'll be able to flow your arguments. Enunciation and clarity will help a lot, as will pausing at the right times.

I have not judged on the topic this year, so I am not familiar at all with the affs/arguments.

I love solid, full analysis and support for claims. That doesn't have to be empirical evidence, but the more specifics, the better. At the same time, I love framing and weighing and big picture analysis as well.

I'm not familiar with most kritiks, but I will be open to them, and if well explained, I will be able to evaluate the arguments. Please assume I know nothing about the kritik or the norms for judging them but I will listen to your arguments if well explained. If you refer to terms or arguments very quickly, as if everyone knows them in kritiks, I will not know what you are arguing, and I can't vote on what I don't understand.

I am more familiar with policy arguments and I love a great case debate. I also love a great T debate.

Update for Winter Cup 12/16/2023:The point is for novices or beginners to learn -- I don't want to hear theory or 400 wpm spreading

Hello! I'm vedant (vuh-dahnt). I've debated on the natcirc for 3 years, quartered STOC, made it to top outs a few times and broke at some nat circs. I will flow and evaluate whatever.

My goal as the judge is to adjudicate (obvious) and (arguably more importantly) make the round a safe, inclusive space. If you're not sure what anything on my paradigm is or wanna ask about anything else, feel free to email me at vedantamisra@gmail.com

TL; DR in bold

Alr, time for the juicy stuff:

• tech> truth, "tabula rasa", whatever you need. Make rounds fun, debate is a game. So, have fun with it.

• Feel free to post round. I think it's crucial to get feedback in the middle of a tournament. Please just don't be too aggressive with it (I will NOT change my ballot/decision).

• Cool with (and lowk pref) open crosses
• Take unlimited prep if ur asking for evi (while the opps send it*). Like in the TOC guidelines, I believe that it incentivizes teams to be quick with ev exchanges. PLEASE BE QUICK with evidence. If you take too long, I'm hard docking speaks and getting frustrated, making me less likely to vote for you.
• If its a panel with lays, I'll adapt to them unless you ask me not to. I feel like everyone should be accommodated. It shouldn't be a problem for you to go lay.
• If you think something's missing from my paradigm, please feel free to ask me at the same email.
• Also, please put me on the email chain. vedantamisra@gmail.com
• speed is good but send a speech doc before and make any accommodations your opponents ask for (including not going fast). if your spreading is bad i'll be sad and so will your speaks (wompity womp) formatting accommodations like rehighlighting cards, bolding, or making text bigger should also be met
• My favorite debaters/influences are Jason Luo, Ishan Dubey, Ryan Jiang, Jack Johnson, Sully Mrkva, and Ashwath Nayagudarai.
• Also i will be timing almost everything. I'll put my hands up past 5 seconds and stop flowing. Otherwise i'll dock speaks a little
• i'm pretty facially expressive -- I'll smile or laugh if what u say is funny or stupid -- or if ur corny. I'll also look confused if I'm confused or look exasperated if i'm exasperated, etc.
• Bro pls stop being corny "i'm going to begin on my case, defending allegations, and then flat out explaining why our evidence is credible" or "we still stand strong and have proven MULTIPLE TIMES" like idgaf pls enjoy ur life and find religion

*****SUBSTANCE*****

• I like hypertech rounds with evidence and spreading, but that doesn't mean you should have a lack of warranting. Please warrant no matter what (including extensions of case and responses!)
• FOR SPREADING: I can go 300 to 350ish wpm. After that, u risk losing me on the flow. (would also be down to hear spreading theory)
• Second rebuttal needs to frontline all offense and most defense. I feel like its hella unfair to 1st summary if you don't. They could point out that defense was conceded, then 2nd summ comes with some new frontlines. Don't necessarily frontline defense if you don't plan on going for it.
• First summary can extend how they want to. I've voted for debaters that straight up just went for turns, or just went for their case and a few pieces of defense. Bottom line, go for SOME offense in the back half.
• In terms of the entire round, weigh. ESPECIALLY IN THE BACK HALF, the best way to my ballot is to extend case, weigh comparatively, and extend the most terminal stuff on your opponents case. Lowk, if you can just explain to me why I should prioritize your offense over your opponents', it'll probably suffice as weighing. Just be sure to do a comparative.
• Terminalize your impacts. 'Cybercrime increasing' doesn't matter to me. $10 trillion + GDP losses -> poverty as a result of cybercrime does tho
• Make a really good comparative and meta-weigh. I LOVE META-WEIGHING. I rly wish more teams used it.
• i do think evidence is important but i need warrants with claims. in the complete absence of warrants in evi, good analytical warrants > unwarranted cards. pls extend nicely, warrant, implicate, and weigh <3 evidence misconstruction is bad and if you do it you may have to lose :(
• At the end of the day, I approach my flow and look to see who had the best comparative, then the cleanliness of the flow, and then the best defense/offense on the opps' case. To quote Katheryne Dwyer, " i think the best debaters are ones that build a narrative and still engage well on the tech (which is my way of saying poor spreading, short extensions, and a bunch of underwarranted blippy frontlines are not the way to my heart nor my ballot). my favorite debates are pretty quick techy substance rounds that still have lots of warranting and very clear ballot directive language in the backhalf." Watch Edina JS vs Strake Jesuit DY Emory Quarters on YT for a pretty good example (minus the deont stuff in the 1NR).

• Carded weighing is GASSSS.

• I like framework debates. Feel free to read new frameworks in every speech minus summaries and final foci. If it's conceded, then u don't have to ext everything. I.e. if someone concedes a 30-45 second structural violence framework, only spend like 10-15 seconds on it in final focus.

EVIDENCE:

This one's important.

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.

If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of what we are debating for. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. But the evidence element is often just a constraint put on debaters by big school judges with freshman prep squads that can pump out a billion cards in a day as a way of maintaining an edge. Evidence is very nice, and research is important (I was a research first debater), but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

warranted empirics > warranted evidence > warranted analytic > unwarranted empirics/evi > unwarranted blips. blips are sad.

PROGRESSIVE

In general, I'm mostly okay with evaluating prog.

Theory:I dont like theory but i ran it a little. I also hit frivolous and stock shells. I have a decent amount of experience and can probably keep up with most shells. Just ask me before your speech if I think I can judge it to make sure. I'm open to hearing both stock shells such as paraphrase and disclo, as well as frivolous shells. Just make sure the shell isn't toooo frivolous i.e. formal clothing bad theory. In terms of winning on theory, you gotta have RVIs to hv offense on the shell. Make sure you signpost a counter interp and really anything. I will default to competing interps. You don't have to use jargon when responding to theory --> j make sure the general stuff is there i.e. disclo bad for XYZ, para good for XYZ.

- Defaults: yes OCIs, no RVIs (low threshold for responses tho), CI > reasonability (minus friv theory), and the whole shebang.

• Don't disclo and paraphrase iyw -->I might not give good speaks but I'm def not hacking --> so many judges basically hack on this and thats sad (esp bc small schools genuinely don't know what stuff is)

• Reactionary theory can be read in any non final focus speech based on the circumstance i.e. someone mispronouned you like 9 times in 1st summary, u read pronoun theory in 2nd summ is okay. Or, read paraphrase theory directly after the speech someone used the paraphrased evi in like in 1st summ.
• IVIs are kinda stupid but I understand the genuine ones -- someone dropped some bs card, paraphrased but its too late, etc. As long as its not the blippiest 15s IVI idrc

Kritiks:I haven't hit too many K's, so be slightly wary with them. I will do my best to judge them, however. I would love to judge a round with good substantive K's that have understandable warrants. I prefer substansive K's, but will also judge non-T K's. Be prepared tho, I will 100% vote on T ( I won't hack but I will prefer a conceded T shell over a non-T K. Make sure to hv a CI to T if you run non-T K's).

Tricks:I used to not like these/understand them. Run them tbh. I think the funnier the better. Just don't read four straight minutes (u risk a lot) but maybe sprinkle some in w/ a security K or something. J make sure that the extensions and tricks themselves are WARRANTED.

Before you do any prog make sure you understand it -- I mean that --> theres literally been no round I know of that doesn't have messiness involved in prog.

Backfiles DONT save you either, they're usually the problem source.

LD Paradigm

Usually k affs need to change the squo to be convincing (unless its an Adv T aff!) something to change the squo in the world in debate

tell me if ur kicking out of something i.e. if i should judge kick the cp

do anything u want same stuff applies from the pf stuff j know im a standard tech judge

SPEAKS:

Going for good speaks is cool. Here are some good things you can do outside of substance that will probably boost your speaks massively.

1. Good basketball joke/analogy. I was surprised to see Alec Boulton with a pretty similar speaks chart. If you talk about glorious king LeBron or Lakers, auto 30. (russ jokes don't count anymore :(. )
2. If you read 4 mins of impact turns or 4 min of j turns in 2nd constructive auto 29.5 (30 if u read an impact turn I haven't heard of yet)
3. If you turn in your chair or standing up when ur reading a turn
4. If you make a good cricket joke/analogy. Call me Indian as hell (true tbh) but I rly like cricket. My fav players are my other glorious king Kohli, LeSuryaKumar Yadav, Sachin Tendulkar, and Chris Gayle.
5. Hip-Hop references. My fav artists are Gambino, Outkast, Travis Scott, Biggie, (the man who made Graduation), Tyler, the Weeknd, and so many more. auto 30 for a good ref.
6. Making jokes in cross (auto 28.5). 27 if they're corny tho.
7. Be nice/ don't be not nice. Be competitive, just not rude/condescending. Even if you're hitting the worst arg in the history of args, don't act like your opponent is dumb or something. It's not too hard.
8. Don't steal prep(minus the ev exchanges thing).
9. If you read evi, HAVE IT CUT or suffer low speaks, ur opponents having 5 mins of free prep, and a probable L (i wont hack but i'll be in a bad mood)

otherwise, I default to 28 and add/subtract based on how you did. If you followed my paradigm and did a good, warranted, clashful, fun debate -- expect a high 29.something. Otherwise, if it was mid and normal, expect a 28.5. I usually don't dock speaks unless evi. For instance, if you take 5 mins to send, i'll cut you down to 27.

IMPORTANT STUFF:

- Responding to prog or squirrely args with the"we're small schools and don't know" I j wont flow it. if ur in varsity -- prepare for varsity arguments. Anything is game. Be ready for K's, Tricks, theory, funky ass arguments, and literally anything. obviously if ur a novice or JV then its different lol.

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you + contact ur coaches + tab gets involved. I'm dead serious when I say it's not hard to be exclusionary and anything otherwise will get me mad as hell. My first duty is to make the round safe y'all -- its not hard.

Content warnings: yes they're important (I should be fine evaluating anything for now) but most often people use them too much. I don't think poverty, death, or anything like that needs one. If it's graphic descriptions or is abt things related to abuse, SA, trafficking, or something sensitive and personal -- yes do one. Read TW theory if u need but if there was a genuine abuse I'm stopping the round and dropping you.

Unless the tournament says otherwise, I will disclose and give my RFD (may even do disclo if the tourney doesn't allow me -- its stupid to not know if you won or lost ((unless its a round robin!)))

Pet Peeves

• "time starts on my 1st word" not that annoying but still
• "can I take one min of prep" --> j take some and take however much u want idc
• "i have proven throughout this round multiple times" or cringe phrase like that --> ugh
• MOST IMPORTANTLY: I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE MFS W LONG OFF TIME ROADMAPS- j tell me where u start and signpost, if a roadmap is more than 5-7s than imma cry and taaaaaaaank speaks dont dont dont do it. i better not hear "i will begin on my argument, pointing out why my opponents responses are wrong and why our evidence is better and why we have better impacts and why im a monkey" istg

TO CONCLUDE

Have fun with the round. Try new stuff and do your best -- hard work pays off.

Overall -- do what you want just do it well. Have some fun in the rounds and try to learn something. Everyone has a favorite argument they try to write about or run every topic ( i.e. drug trafficking, china/US heg, biotech innov) so try to find yours. At the very least don't be uncomfortable. Do your best and leave the rest to the flow.

Sorry -- that was long. if you made it then answer this riddle (if ur correct u get an auto 30):

I'm always hungry, I must always be fed,
The finger I touch, I soon leave it dead.
People fear my presence, yet I bring no strife,
I'm essential to the balance of life.
What am I?

Hello there, my name is Akhil Nadithe (he/him). I am extremely familiar with PF, LD, poetry and Extemporaneous speaking. I am familiar with WSD, BQ, and most types of interp.

Email address: ask for email address in round.

First and foremost, please do your part to make debate a safe, educational environment. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, ableist, exclusionary or discriminatory in any way.If you are, I will drop you

Paradigms are TLDR so here are some bullet points

Tech>Truth

I love trix+meme cases (Debate is supposed to be fun)

Pls send me both cases and I would also like to see asked for cards aswell

DON'T SPREAD, I will stop flowing.

Please tell me what you think my RFD should be in the last speech.

I don't flow cross. If you want me to vote on something that happened in cross, bring it up in the next speech.

Second rebuttal must frontline turns.

Extend links, warrants, and impacts.

Have fun

Hi! I'm Veer(he/him). I did PF for four years at Durham Academy as part of Durham HP. Now I'm a freshman at NYU Stern and an assistant coach for the Taipei American School.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu

TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments.

General

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, and you can make it funny(it makes my job a lot more entertaining), but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.

To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.

Signpost — tell me where you are on the flow clearly and efficiently, number responses, clear contention tags, etc.

Please collapse. Slow down in the back half and don't go for your whole case. I'm not voting off of a 5 second extension of a half fleshed-out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than five arguments poorly.

I don't flow cross. A little bit of humor goes a long way in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long way in tanking your speaks.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible. If you're going to go fast, slow down for the tags.

If you misconstrue evidence and the other team gives me a reason to drop you, I'll do it. Please do good research and read good evidence.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way, you will lose the round.

How I Evaluate

I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. Make sure your weighing is actually comparing both arguments efficiently, use real weighing mechanisms and do the metaweighing if you need to. I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing.

Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.

Prog

Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments OR are in the varsity division of a TOC-bidding tournament. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.

My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.

I default to competing interps and yes RVIs, you have to read No RVIs and reasonability with warrants if I'm going to vote on it.

Topical Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.

Non-T Ks: I've had experience with these, but it's hard to pull off in PF. I've seen it work and I've seen it not work. Avoid personal attacks and stay respectful. Also, please make my role as the judge and the role of the ballot as explicit as possible.

SOME OF MY FAVORITE JUDGES WHEN I DEBATED: Gabe Rusk, Brian Gao, Bryce Pitrowski

Hi! My name is Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar (he/him). I'm a current junior at Ravenwood High School who has debated under variations of Ravenwood SM. I've had a decent amount of success on the local and national circuit. I've had a good amount of experience as well.

Email for Chain: kaushik.sathiya3@gmail.com.

I consider the most important rule in debate as being safe and respectful. In round, be chill, nice, and respectful before the round. If anyone is there before the round, the same rules apply. If I'm there before round, feel free to talk about anything.

Tech > Truth.

How I evaluate the round:

I evaluate the weighing first. Once I determine which team is winning the weighing, I look at their case first. If that team is also winning their case, the round is over. If that team is losing their case, I will presume for the team that is speaking first. I make this notion because first summary and final focus are objectively the hardest speeches in the round. However, if you disagree with me, feel free to make presumption warrants and I will evaluate them.

General:

I am mostly fine with speed. If you start going over 215 words per minute, please send a speech doc before you start the speech.

Please make evidence exchange quick. If it takes longer than 2 minutes to send a piece of evidence, I'm striking it from the flow.

Speech-by-Speech:

Case:

Feel free to read whatever you want as long as it's not excluding anyone. Make sure to give warrants for every argument that you're reading.

Rebuttal:

Feel free to read how many ever overviews/advantages/disadvantages in rebuttal. The only rule I have about that is being clear. It becomes a line where I prefer quality over quantity. Collapsing in second rebuttal is also cool.

Summary & Final Focus:

These are the most important speeches in the round, so it's important that you do them right. Extend your arguments properly."Extend Kumar 23" isn't a proper extension. Please weigh. Please make your weighing comparative. Please make sure that you respond to all weighing in round. These speeches also must mirror each other. I will not evaluate anything new.

Progressive Argumentation:

I would highly prefer that you do not read progressive argumentation. I do not believe that I have the sufficient ability to evaluate progressive argumentation to a high extent.

Speaker Points:

30: All Turns in Constructive

30: Turning in Chair when Reading a Turn

30: Referencing the Seattle Seahawks or anything related with cricket.

30: Referencing Kanye West, Juice Wrld, Playboi Carti, or Lil Tecca in speech. (Send song recommendations too).

Some of the debaters that have shaped my view of debate are Vedant Misra, Marcus Novak, Anmol Malviya, Ryan Jiang, and William Hong. Read any of their paradigms if you have any questions or preferences related to substance.

I know this was pretty short and doesn't talk about my views about a lot of things, so feel free to email before the round to see my views. You can also ask me in room.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Tech > truth

non-interventionist

No harassment or bigotry of any kind, auto-drop.

Email: vivek95148@outlook.com

^ Add to all email chains, I want to see disclosure

Call me "Josh" or "jsp"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com - yes put me on the chain, i want an email chain set up before each rounds start time

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations: Ivy Bridge Academy, Georgia State University, Thomas Kelly College Prep

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow technical debating and jargon from across those 3 events so just you do you - I have coached/debated/judged/voted on tricks, theory, kritiks, plan, phil, trad and lay (insert whatever non-descriptive 1 word shorthand you like). Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs:

1 - K, Plans, Case Debate, Lay, T/T-FW

2 - DA's/CP's, Theory, Narratives

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Strike - Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

How I vote

I will only vote on what was in the final speech and what is implicated to be in the final speech as the reason to vote for you. That is the only hard line I draw. (this includes you must extend case against a 2nr on T). Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

I’m a lay judge, explain everything clearly and with warranting. If you read theory or k’s I most likely will not know how to evaluate it.

truth>tech

compete on the nat circ

put me on the email chain: jzhao25@mail.strakejesuit.org

feel free to reach out if u have questions

prefs

larp - 1

theory/kritiks - 2

k affs - 3

trix - 4

big picture stuff

tech > truth

debate is a game ill vote off anything with warrants

do anything u want as long as its not problematic i.e racist, homophobic, etc

collapse extend and weigh

if ur going 250+ wpm send a doc

speed is a tool that should be used to explain things better and give them more breadth not to spam warrantless arguments but a good dump is always appreciated

weighing needs to be comparative and meta weighing or link weighing are good way to clear up the weighing debate

dont try to hide new defense as "probability weighing"

sol weighing is only relevant if the arg is conceded and u do meta weighing off of sol

link weighing > impact weighing

anything that isnt frontlined in second rebuttal is conceded

turns need to be implicated and weighed

cross doesnt matter to me

stuff in ff has to be in summary and needs an explicit extensions of unq link internal link and impact for anything u go for

default neg but u can make args for defaulting aff/neg or 1st/2nd

no new presumption warrants in ff

pls no off the clock roadmap just signpost

prog

fine w theory must extend interp in every speech

default to yes rvis competing interps and spirit over text

no rvis doesnt mean ur shell is a no risk offense issue - if someone wins a link turn on ur shell or that their ci is better u lose

if multiple shells are being read they need to be weighed against each other

paraphrasing is bad disclosure is good but it doesnt mean ill hack for those arguments

for reference, here's a list of shells i've ran/hit: os disclo, full text disclo, para, round reports, topicality, spec rotb, shoes, vague alts bad, alts bad

not well versed in more complex k lit like baudrillard but i have a good understanding of the stock stuff like cap, security, set col, etc so run at ur risk

try to make the k as accessible as possible so that a parent could understand

low threshold to responses to trix and dont hide them in tags