Last changed on
Sat March 30, 2024 at 6:22 AM CDT
Winston Churchill '25 -- 3 years of mostly PF
Put me on the email chain, my email is cameroningramdebate@gmail.com
Feel free to reach out with any questions you may have
most of this is taken from Vivek Yarlagedda, Ishan Dubey, and Ilan Benavi
TDLR: Tech PF Judge
---PREFS---
LARP -- 1
Theory -- 2
Plans/Counterplans -- 2
Topical Kritiks -- 3
Non-T Kritiks -- 4
High Theory/Phil, Performance, etc -- 5 (Strike)
---GENERAL---
Tech > Truth
Truth is largely determined by the technical debating in round. Debate is a game about persuasion. I am most persuaded by arguments. Treating me like a stereotypical policy-leaning flow/circuit judge is usually a safe bet, though not a lock. Conceded arguments are "true" per se, but only the conceded parts. "Even if" arguments and cross-applications are fair game. This should go with out saying but I will not vote on an argument that I cannot make sense of or explain back to you, even if dropped.
Prep Time
Don't steal it. Flex prep is fine. Clarification questions are flex prep.
Signposting
Signposting is crucial, especially for messier rounds. Judge instruction is also super helpful and highly valued (how to evaluate the round, when/whether I should grant new arguments, if I should gut-check or err one way or another, etc).
Cross
Cross ex is binding but you need bring up relevant concessions in a speech (it can be brief, don't waste time re-inventing the wheel). I'll likely listen to cross ex but will not flow it. Open cross and skipping GCX are good.
Weighing
Resolve clashing link-ins/pre-reqs/short circuits -- otherwise I'll most likely have to intervene to resolve it.I'll be sad and you'll be mad.
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).
Defense
Frontline in second rebuttal -- everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech
Defense isn't sticky. 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.
Evidence Ethics/Exchange/Thoughts
Send speech docs before you speak. This is non-negotiable for national circuit tournaments and entails, at a minimum, sending all evidence you plan on introducing. If you choose to send "specific pieces of evidence", I will not stop your opponents from stealing prep in the meantime.
Use an email chain, preferably, speechdrop, or tab for exchange. Don't send google docs, especially if you intend on disabling the option to copy and/or download. Long evidence exchanges are a huge pet peeve. The quicker and smoother the round, the better.
Marking docs doesn't require prep. Using accessible formatting on verbatim or sending rhetoric is fine so long as the cards are included as well, though I think that sending rhetoric may be a violation of some shells.
Evidence matters a lot to me. Debate is a researched-based activity. Evidence/warrant comparison plays a huge part in most of my decisions. Do it so I don't have to.
None of this is to say don't make make analytics.Sound analytics can be very convincing, especially when used to exploit inevitable gaps in logic. Smart arguments and strategic decision-making can absolutely beat quality evidence. That said, I may not catch nor vote on incredibly blippy analytics.
I encourage you to stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating NSDA and/or tournament evidence rules (generally clipping, fabrication, straw-manning, ellipses). If there is a rule against something and you are not willing to stake the round, it will be difficult to convince me that the practice merits a loss. That said, rules are a still a floor, not a ceiling.
Other
I'll probably always have done some research on the topic, but still explain jargon.
Absent warrants, I'll presume first due on non-fiated topics, and status quo on fiated topics. No new presumption warrants in final focus though, make sure they're in summary.
Winning zero-risk is not impossible but will usually require solid explanation and/or evidence.
Speak at whatever rate you want so long as you are comprehensible, most people think they are clearer than they are. I was a fast-ish debater but appreciate the slow-and-steady approach. Fast or slow, pen time is nice.Do not sacrifice clarity. Slowing down on analytics and for emphasis, especially in back-half speeches, tends to be helpful. If you spread, please read real taglines (thus, additionally, etc. don't count) and actual cards otherwise flowing will be difficult and your speaker points will decrease.
I stop flowing when the timer hits 0. Time yourselves and call each other out.
I think long case extensions are bad for clash, so I have a very low threshold for extensions, BUT, they must be very clear. Ex. "We're going for our argument on X". Answering turns on arguments you're not going for is a must, however you chose to do that. I do think that extensions of things that are not case do require slightly more in depth extensions -- think turns, defense, etc, but not to the same extent as other judges. Things like impact turns and Ks do not need explicit extensions unless you want to clarify the link story for me.
If you want to read a complex/wacky argument, just be read to defend and explain it (especially the latter). You'd be surprised at how often you can win rounds on "untrue" arguments, so it's disappointing to hear such arguments read solely for comedic effect.Being strategic and having fun are not mutually exclusive.
Well-warranted impact turns are often strategic: democracy, growth, food prices, climate change, disease, etc. Please supplement these with impact defense and interact with your opponent's impact evidence/explanation if you go this route. Arguments like spark are fine, arguments like wipeout are questionable.
Please label email chains clearly. Ex. "Grapevine R1 -- Winston Churchill IM (Aff 1st) vs Southlake Carroll RY (Neg 2nd)".
---PROGRESSIVE---
Theory
I prefer binary theory debates over semantical ones. I will probably ask myself: "Is X practice enough for Y team to lose the round?" Avoid theory as a crutch. I am not a good judge for frivolous theory. In elimination rounds especially, you have to win substantial offense to convince me that it is more important than substance. Substance crowd-out is absolutely an impact and one that I will implicitly consider. Lack of a CI is not always round-ending, especially if you plan on impact turning the shell; I will simply assume that you are defending the violation/status quo. Shoe and Team Sweater theory is friv, hyper-specific disclosure shells and must not send Google docs are not.
Defaults: Text > Spirit, CI > Reasonability, yes OCIs (non-negotiable), no RVIs (a turn or anything of the sort is not an RVI), DTA, DTD doesn't need to be explicitly said or extended -- a warrant for why something is a voter/reject the team/debater is sufficient.
Paraphrasing is bad. It will be hard to convince me otherwise. I will not directly penalize you for paraphrasing if it is not an issue in the round or unless evidence is egregiously misrepresented, in which case speaker points will suffer and you may lose. Bracketing can be just as bad as paraphrasing. If you bracket, do so in good faith. If there is a theory debate, intent matters. The only difference with paraphrasing in terms of penalization is if there is clearly excessive bracketing then I will decrease speaker points and call you out.
Disclosure is probably good and open-sourcing is probably the best way to do so. I do not think OS qualifies as semantical. If you read disclosure without open-sourcing, it will be a harder sell. More broadly, reading disclosure with bad disclosure practices is a colossal risk.
You only need a Content Warning if discussing something something graphic, but I do not personally think that the absence of a CW should be an in-round voting issue and opt-outs definitely aren't.
I don't love "IVIs" (short procedural arguments are different) but will vote on them if they are presented as a complete argument and won. If the abuse is clear and obvious, an "IVI" will suffice, though I strongly dislike the term.
I will never vote for call-outs, ad-homs, or arguments based on things outside of the round that are non-verifiable (I think disclosure is different but not all circumstances surrounding it). If there is an in-round issue, that's a different story.
The K
I'm interested by these arguments but do not have an amazing understanding of most of them.
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.
"Conceding" the text of a ROB does not mean the round is over: creative weighing under a conceded ROB is welcome.
Reject alts and discourse alts are probably fake, but I will vote on them if won. I'm pretty flexible with extra-topical alternative/method strategies, which I think is needed for a well-executed K in PF. (pls do that; ontological revisionism > reject capitalism)
I will never vote for arguments precluding your opponents from linking in or "we said it first".
Framework and T-FW are pretty persuasive to me. Theory uplayers the K but I can be convinced otherwise.
Framing/ROTB
I default to util and will evaluate basic framing (think Fem, SV, etc). Anything more complex is out of my realm, but I'll listen to anything.
Plans/Counterplans
I've run them before, I think they're good, but I'm probably pretty lenient in terms of responses. If it's a natcirc, I don't care about the rule that bans them, if it's NSDA districts or nats, you might be able to sneak it in but I probably won't eval it.
Won't work on "on balance" resolutions, but if it's a fiated policy topic, go for it I guess.
Tricks
I won't evaluate anything I don't understand and my knowledge on these falls off a cliff once you go past "predictions fail" to "dogmatism paradox", but in general, probably just don't.
---EXTRA---
After Round
I will disclose who I voted for unless there is a rule against it. There will always be some explanation on the ballot.
Speaker points are my decision (I will not give everyone 30s because you asked) but I will try to standardize them as much as possible. I will base speaker points off of the event norms, strategy, coherence, argument quality, increments, and tournament (local, national).
Post-round/ask questions. Doing so is educational, holds judges accountable, and makes debate more transparent. Being upset is fine, just don't make it personal.
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.
---NON PF EVENTS---
The PF paradigm applies, I do almost exclusively PF, but I'm not super unfamiliar with a lot of policy arguments, LD is the event I'm least familiar with.
Main difference to note is counterplans, read them, go for them, but be sure to explain them. Theory is a valid response to a lot of things, i.e. process CPs, mostly.
