Tabroom.com

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2024 — Berkeley, CA/US

Varsity Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ayushi Bhardwaj Northwood High School 6 rounds

Kia Aliakbar Hire

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 11:55 PM PDT

Experience: 4 years of PubFo and Parli at the circuit level

Speaker Points: I'm an old-school debater. I grew up debating at the dinner table so I'm going to be looking keenly for how well you listen to your opponent, actually understand what they say and how they think, and how well you articulate and explain yourself to them. This means you should be on your A-game during cross-examination. I also like to see your speaking style. I did a lot of OO and Impromptu so I'm pretty critical of this as well. I'm going to determine a winner based on what you say, not how you say it. But how you say it will go a long way towards determining how influential what you say is to winning.

Speed- I've been out of circuit debate for a while so proceed at a reasonable speed. No spreading please.

Ks are fine but don't stretch it. Only use it if it's necessary. I'm here to listen to something substantive about a real-world issue. Theory shells are fine but make sure it's well-structured and concise, especially if it's abstract reasoning. Sell all Ks and T-shells directly to me.

Topicality- Only do this if it's necessary. Debate over topicality shouldn't run past the first cross-examination, otherwise the debate becomes pointless. Don't try to win on topicality because I want to be able to weigh contentions on a common framework.

Impact Calculus- This is where you're going to make your money. All contentions should have a well-supported and well-defined impact. All impacts should be related directly to the value criterion, then value, and then the resolution such that the last thing you say should literally end with "...which is why we affirm/negate the resolution...(insert resolution)." Disads and extensions are good. I think it's important to the identity of a debate to exchange perspectives on the same idea. In the end I will be the ultimate judge of which impacts are valid and which impacts weigh more.

Respect- I spent all four years of my high school debate career actively working against the notion that your opponents are your enemies. Yes, you are debating against them but they're across the table from you because they share the same love for debate as you do. Appreciate the fact that they are there and treat them with respect, otherwise, I might just give you a loss. Watch your demeanor, be nice, and mean it.

Flow- I flow debates. If you're talking and I'm not writing it means that you didn't come across clearly in your last point and I'm trying to figure it out or that I'm waiting for you to say something substantive. Sometimes I will look up at you if I think you're making an important point. Don't waste your time and energy worrying over what I'm thinking because it could be the exact opposite. Make sure you address all of your opponent's points on the flow. Internal links are huge. If you don't link your points and support those links with evidence I won't buy it. Signpost everything. If you didn't explain something properly the first time i'll give you one more opportunity to clarify and validate your point. I look at the flow holistically so don't lose it over small things but if they add up it's going to make a difference, especially in a close round.

Luis Artiz Loyola High School 6 rounds

Naomi Bahm Mira Loma High School 6 rounds None

Amit Bansal Leland High School

Maria Barun Cherry Creek High School 4 rounds

Jennifer Beagles Natrona County High School 3 rounds

Bryan Benitez Hire 6 rounds

Prasad Bhethanabotla Lynbrook HS 1 rounds

Shabbir Bohri The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 10:19 PM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Joshua Bourekas Branham High School 2 rounds

Stefanie Bye Stockdale High School 4 rounds

Howard Chang Gunn Sr High School 3 rounds

Alexander Chasun Saint Francis High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 11:34 PM PDT

about me:

first year out
did pf for six years/competed under St Francis BC
I now do APDA at Stanford, but I'm very much a beginner at parli so please bear with me if I'm your judge for it.

email chain: alexchas@stanford.edu

**General**

Tech > Truth, but my barrier for overlooking your evidence that says that the moon is made of cheese is low if you don’t support it with well substantiated warranting when faced with a response or evidence challenge.

My view of a good strategy/performance is simple:

Warranting is your friend: whether you’re reading a turn, weighing, extending, or reading framework, warrant warrant warrant. Teams that read concise, well intentioned, and well substantiated warranting have never in my eyes been hurt by it.

But Alex if I warrant that aggressively I can’t read my blippy contentions, turns, and weighing anymore :(

Haha so true bestie, that’s the point

Towards the back half of the round, I want to see both teams collapse and weigh to make it clear to me what your narrative is, why I should vote for your case/link/turn specifically, and how it interacts with the round as a whole.
#1 also implies that speeches between partners will share a common vision and strategy, which definitely ain’t happening if your FF doesn’t mirror your Summary.
This is a preference but I prefer cohesive and nuanced cases over spamming multiple contentions with subpoints, because in my experience, #1 and #2 of my views of a good strategy don’t often happen with the latter.
This doesn’t happen in all rounds, but doing things like kicking case for turns (when done well) are quite impressive for me and fall under what I would deem “good performance”
If you plan on reading a framework, actually understand the literature behind each of your framework’s warrants and use that to your advantage to weigh against other arguments.

What I mean by good weighing:

Good weighing is not me voting for you because your number is bigger than theirs. It’s giving me an understanding why I should turn to your arguments first. That also implies that you will be comparing weighing mechanisms as well. Because telling me you win on one metric while the other team wins on another brings me back to square one, where I’m back to being forced to pick and choose based on what I personally think.

I’ll always look at weighing first, then any offense connected to that weighing, then all other offense (if there is no other weighing, which would make me sad)

Speed:

Speed is fine with me, and I’ll yell clear if I need to. But, note that as the months go by I’ll be less in tune with high school forensics, so it might be to your advantage to not go too crazy. (Crazy means speech doc levels)
Slow down for tags
I don’t like flowing off docs

Tiny rant about extinction framing:

This is not an excuse to avoid any meaningful weighing by simply reading your 100 trillion deaths card over and over again. Still weigh. Also actually read the lit behind your links because some cards I’ve seen have been so outrageous and not in the good way.

**Random Things**

Cross is binding. I won’t be flowing, but I’ll be paying attention so don’t pull anything morally ambiguous.

If you want me to read evidence, tell me to call for it. With that said, if it's irrelevant to the bigger picture of the debate, I won’t be reading it, and I’ll explain why in relation to the round in my rfd.

Postrounding is ok, I make mistakes. But note that my decision was also impacted by what has happened in the round, so ideally we could avoid this situation. If there was a game changing piece of weighing or delink that should’ve given you the win, you should’ve been making it clear in the backhalf.

**Prog**

Theory: I’ve run and debated against theory a decent number of times, and I’ve got to say it isn’t my favorite. Most rounds turn into the same thing over and over again with similar-ish standards that just end up going in favor of the team that has the most experience with theory to begin with. It’s also frankly quite clear that a majority of teams that run theory don’t do it for the sake of “spreading norms” or “prioritizing education,” rather they see it as a way to pick up rounds, so forgive me if my eyes roll to the back of my skull.

In addition, the notion that theory checks back against ad hominem, in-round abuse is absurd. If someone says something problematic and offensive about me in a round, the last thing I’m thinking about is how to format their violation into a shell and taking prep time to prepare an off for my next speech.

With that said, if you feel uncomfortable in the round, don’t hesitate to email me with my email above, and I will stop the round.

No Friv theory

Kritiks: I only ran two kritiks (neo-colonialism/intersectional queer futurity) in my time debating, and although they were quite fun to learn about and read, I will be the first to acknowledge that I barely knew what I was doing. I know about kritiks in concept and understand their function and format, but in practice, the lines become blurred for me. With that said, I find that critical literature raises a lot of interesting questions, especially if they discuss a cause you are particularly passionate about, so be my guest if you want to run it, I’d love to engage with you on the subject matter, just note that I might not evaluate the round as formally as someone proficient on the matter.

Chickoo Chawda Dougherty Valley High School

Catherine Chen Miramonte High School

Songting Chen Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy 2 rounds

Sophie Cheung Westridge School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 11:43 PM PDT

Background: I did PF for the majority of my 5 years in competitive S&D, along with Extemp, Parli, and Impromptu. I was overall S&D captain at Westridge and I currently teach S&D to elementary and middle schoolers across the Bay Area. I final-ed at states and competed in nats, so I can handle tech, but I strongly prefer rounds that are more lay (slow down and don't use abbreviations) to increase accessibility for more novice opponents or spectators.

Basics: You can be assertive, but don’t be exclusive, disrespectful, or mean. (No eye rolling, laughing, etc. during an opponent’s speech). Pre-flow before round and stand during your speeches. Introduce yourself and your side before each speech. I will tell you if I cannot understand you. I will disclose and feel free to ask me questions. Let me know if you have any questions/concerns before the round begins. This paradigm is in order of importance.

To win: Signpost clearly. Extend your link chains with warrants. Weigh. If it’s not in summary, it won’t count in your final focus. Please weigh and use impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc). Make my life easy, by telling me where to vote and why. Make your life easier by collapsing; you can’t and shouldn’t go for everything. Tech > truth, but don't abuse it please.

Timing: I can take speed, but I have my limits so proceed carefully, enunciate, and still sound interesting. If you are monotonously flying through your speech, I won’t flow much. Time yourselves and hold up a fist if your opponent’s time is up. Give a brief offtime roadmap and assume time starts on your first word. Announce when your prep time is starting/ending. State how much prep time you used after each time so everyone is on the same page.

Evidence: Don’t just read author names, remind me what the card said and why it matters. Use prep time for reading your opponent’s evidence. If you take more than 2-3 min to get your cards, we’ll assume you don’t have it and move on. I don’t mind paraphrasing but do not misconstrue. I expect all evidence to be fully carded, not just a link. Tell me in your speech if and why I should call for a misconstrued card and move on; I don’t want an evidence debate. I will call for cards if they may largely impact the vote or sound sketchy.

Crossfire: Since cross isn’t on the flow, as soon as time is up, please stop talking and start the next speech.

Theory: I am not well versed in theory and would strongly prefer it if you did not run it, so I would proceed with caution and explain clearly if it is definitely the route you want to take.

Remember, we're here to have fun and enjoy the art of debate. Best of luck and I look forward to being your judge! :)

Varsha Chilukuri Hire

Daniel Choi Valley Debate Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 2:03 PM PDT

flintridge prep '23, uc berkeley '27

i debated under flintridge prep cy (or yc) and did ok

put me on the email chain: danielchoi758@berkeley.edu

tldr

don't call me judge
send speech docs before speech whenever u read new cards
weigh
extend
run whatever u want

general (this is all pf specific)

tech > truth
frontline in 2nd rebuttal
extend everything ur going for in summary
collapse
if it's not in summary it can't be in final focus; unless it's new weighing in first final or responding to the new stuff brought up in first final
post rounding is fine idc

things i like

weighing (not the bs prewritten weighing u can say for any round but the comparative prereq, short circuit, etc that requires a little more thinking)
actual clash
speed if you articulate well
speech docs before your speech
not misrepresenting evidence
tricks
staying within the time of your speech
dr. pepper

things to know

PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME JUDGE
if evidence is disputed throughout the round then i will call for it.
i will not time anyone so if ur opponents go over time then hold up ur stopwatch (do not use a timer that rings because it's rude and obnoxious. if u see that i'm flowing even though time is up over 10 seconds, knock on the table a couple times so i look at u with ur timer up)
it's a debate so you can run any argument you want as long as you defend it better than ur opponents' responses against it
slow ev exchanges r my least favorite parts of debates so make it quick, preferably just rly quickly send cut cards before speech. also taking over 30 seconds to find a card is so sus
dont ask every single person in the round individually if they're ready
i know time starts on ur first word or in 3, 2, 1; just give ur speech

how i evaluate rounds

i see who's winning the weighing
if you are winning the weighing, i look to your case and see if your winning your case. if you are, then congrats, you won the round
if you are not winning your case then your weighing doesn't matter so i look to see if your opponents are winning their case. if they are, then they win.
if neither side weighs but both are winning their cases, then i will break the tie by calling for your evidence to see which sides' is better
if both sides have equally good/bad evidence, i will presume neg

Ethan Courtman Winston Churchill HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 6:07 PM CDT

Caddo Magnet High School (c/o 2016)
Trinity University (c/o 2020)

Add me to the ev chain: ethanc907@gmail.com

General

- Do what you do best
- I was a 2N almost all of high school and went for everything
- I like techy debates with lots of comparison, but don't forget to frame the round
- I have a terrible poker face, you'll know if i don't understand something
- I think debate is a game
- Please don't take yourselves too seriously; the end-all be-all of your existence is not determined by a high school debate round

Stuff you should do
- Make arguments (which is a claim, warrant, and impact)
- Explain said arguments
- Clash with your opponents' arguments
- Frame the round
- Disclose your aff (unless it has never been broken) and past 2NRs

Stuff you shouldn't do
- Start every argument with "judge..". My name is Ethan
- Tell me to call for a card 40,000 times without extending a warrant
- Be super salty during all of cross-ex
- Be racist/sexist/generally offensive
- Steal Prep. I probably wont say anything but I'll dock your speaks
- Cheat (clip/lie about arguments made/etc.)

Some specific stuff

Case:
- Good case debating = higher speaks
- Find logical holes in the aff (which always exist).
- Impact turns are p cool
- If you're aff against a K, please don't forget you have an aff

Topicality:
- Disclaimer: I was never a high level T debater. Obviously I will still vote for it
- That being said, I really enjoy a well executed T debate

Framework:
- Explain what debate looks like under your interpretation
- Framework is sometimes your best option, recognize when that is

Disadvantages:
- Impact analysis and turns-case arguments win these debates
- Specific DAs are cool

Counterplans:
- Read whateve
- I loved cheating counterplans as a 2N, but if it's abusive, you obviously should be able to defend it/have a decent solvency advocate
- I really enjoy smart, well researched PICs that punish lazy/ridiculously broad affs.
- Agent counterplans are legitish

Kritiks:
- Specific Ks are usually better
- Contextualize your links to the aff
- Explain your tricky K tricks
- The negative should win some version of framework or a large portion of the case debate
- Long overviews as a substitute for line-by-line make me sad

K Affs:
Feel free to run them. I think they should have at least some connection to the topic, although I'm not really sure what defines "some connection."

General Theory Stuff:
- Prove the in-round abuse or else it's just a reason to reject the argument.
- Condo is probably good in the abstract but I become skeptical if your worlds are super contradictory
- Please slow down and signpost so i can flow instead of just spreading through your 20+ year old theory blocks

Abyan Das Hire 6 rounds

Francis De Quiros Granada Hills Charter High School 2 rounds

Malay Desai Los Altos High School 2 rounds

Neeraj Dewan Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Renee Diop Hire

Last changed on Sun April 7, 2024 at 8:57 AM EDT

edit: Please lower your volume to avoid yelling. I'm sitting 5 ft away from y'all I promise I can hear.

tl;dr: I'm a flow Parliamentary judge, good with speed. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. Policy background, thus a lover of kritiks. Aff Ks are hot, but so are Framework & Disclosure Theory. I default to K > T > Case.

ALSO i usually give oral feedback after the round, i don’t write RFDs so i recommend taking notes

Quick Bio: Hello! My name is Renée Diop and I'm a high school debate coach, tutor, judge, and former competitor. I finaled the California High School Speech Association State Championship in Parliamentary Debate in 2022, and now pass on my recent knowledge of the game to current high school students. If you’re interested in parli debate tutoring, book an appointment at reneediop.com or email me at dioprenee@gmail.com. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/renéediop.

CASE:

Both sides: Definitions need to come out of the first 2 constructive speeches, no backtracking and redefining halfway through the round. For the love of Allah (SWT), collapse collapse collapse.

Aff: I want a killer MG; a good PMR won't win me over if the MG was trash. Kill the flow and leave Neg with zero outs and I'll give you a cookie. For the PMR the best you can do for me is reframe the round and contextualize it under your weighing mechanism, but most of the time my mind is already made up before then.

Neg: LOC needs to hard carry right out the gate. Open to PICs and counter-definitions as long as they come from the LOC and nowhere else; LOR should be preempting, wiping the flow clean so I can vote without even having to listen to the PMR.

THEORY:

Overall: Open to friv T, just don't read off 10 standards and be a douche about it. Keep it cute and fun. Collapse on 1 voters/impact, don't be messy and make me do all the work to evaluate several different layers. Anything that makes me do more work is something to avoid doing. Tell me T > Ks and T > case, but give legitimate reasons for why.

Ks Bad T: Not a fan of it. I love a good K, what can I say. Unless you can present me with some new and unique standards, I believe that Ks specifically grant access to minority debaters, and generalizing all Ks as being "bad" by default is a red flag for me. The only other circumstance I would vote for them is if your opponents are being blatantly inaccessible by spreading you out of the round, being ivory tower, etc.

Framework or Disclosure T: Now this is reasonable. I'll vote for this if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.

KRITIKS:

Overall: Cool with Aff Ks as long as you disclose during prep. I did gender, queer, necro-capitalism, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and marx Ks in high school so if your K aligns with any of those then go for it, BUT ALSO IM OPEN TO ALL KS! Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. Slow when they ask you to. 2) Give definitions for the hella obscure words your literature references. I'm no parent judge, but I also don't have a PhD in English. I'm cool Ks as long as you can translate it to the common vernacular.

Framework: I should know exactly what your thesis is by the end of the FW. Don't wait until the alternative to clearly explain your ideas. Tell me how to evaluate pre vs. post fiat impacts, tell me K > Case, and give me a role of the ballot.

Links: Quality > quantity. No link means no K, so choose them wisely. I want claim, evidence, reasoning like a sophomore year Honors English class. Don't just say, "Our opps did this so they're linking into the K!" actually explain it and justify it with evidence.

Alternative: Not huge on revolutionary/utopian alts, I find them to be no different than post-fiat arguments in most circumstances. If your K has in-round, debate-space solvency then I'll love and cherish you till the ends of the earth <3.

K vs. K rounds: You're so cool if you do this. Love the inevitably high amounts of clash these rounds produce. Just make sure there are proper re-links and that your alternative solves/is a prerequisite to solving theirs.

Thank you for reading & good luck! Hmu after any round to ask a question, get advice, want me to teach you debate, or literally anything else. Email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.

Hannah Du Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Katheryne Dwyer Taipei American School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 10:04 AM EDT

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, went to toc 3 times, toc sems senior yr, ranked high junior and senior yr blah blah, now am a sophomore at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, with a preference for some good, hearty substance rounds. if you wanna get wacky and wild, scroll down and read some stuff at the bottom.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of: am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! pretty bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

i will try to adapt to the panel i'm on for you - if you prefer that means i judge like a lay when on a two lay panel lmk and i will try. but it also means feel free to kick me and go for the two lay ballots! similarly if i'm with two theory judges and that's your strat, go for it! my preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds.

please add k.rose.dwyer (at) gmail (dot) com AND taipeidocz (at) gmail (dot) com to the chain!!!!

TOC NOTES: more than at other tourneys, i am happy to evaluate your wacky stuff at the toc. go for the strategies you've prepped and don't worry about over-adapting to me. i am v familiar with the topic lit and most k links on this topic. IF YOU ARE GOING REALLY FAST AND WANT ME TO FLOW OFF OF YOUR DOC, TELL ME BEFORE YOU START! I flow on paper and usually only look at the doc if it's truly so quick I can't flow, otherwise it distracts me.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, speed is chill but if i'm flowing off your doc you're probs getting a 28, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then youll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances. having read all of these things, i am pretty strongly of the opinion that they are not executed very well in pf, to varying degrees.

no tricks

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. My Facebook is my name (Katheryne Dwyer) and you can email me as well. i very often get emails after rounds asking me for help with debate and i try to respond to all of them but if i don't facebook message me!!!

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theory i am probably just not a good judge for! i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically: feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away! but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks. i'm probably not a terrible judge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

Charbel El Khoury Hanna Miramonte High School 6 rounds

Alex Filonov Miramonte High School 6 rounds

Lujia Gao Amador Valley High School 6 rounds None

Shane Gilbert College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 12, 2024 at 6:49 AM PDT

Put me on the chain: sandrewgilbert@gmail.com

I prefer that teams send cases before constructive and speech docs before rebuttal.

About Me

I competed on the PF national circuit from 2010 to 2012. I coached on and off from 2012 to 2016, when I became the PF coach at Hackley School in NY until June 2019. After being out of debate for 4.5 years, I judged two tournaments in February 2024. I'm not coaching, so don't assume I know anything about the March topic.

Big Picture

I'm tech > truth.

If you want me to vote off your argument, extend the link and impact in summary and FF, and frontline defense. (If there is some muddled defense on your argument, I can resolve that if your weighing is much better and/or the other team's argument is also muddled.)

Give me comparative weighing. Don't just say, "We outweigh on scope." Tell me why you're outweighing the other impact(s). Most teams I vote for are generally doing much more work on the weighing debate, such as responding to the specific reasoning in their opponent's weighing or providing me with metaweighing arguments that compel me to vote for them.

If you say something offensive, I will lower your speaks and might drop you.

Specific Preferences

1. Second rebuttal should cover all turns, and address defense on the argument(s) you go for in summary and FF. If it doesn't cover defense, that's not a deal breaker – just makes it harder for me to vote off.

2. Extend defense in summary and FF. For example, if second rebuttal didn't cover some defense on the argument(s) extended, first summary should extend that defense. Obviously, If second rebuttal didn't frontline an argument, then first summary doesn't need to extend relevant defense.

3. Collapse and weigh in summary and FF. The best teams I've judged typically go for one argument in the second half of the round because collapsing allows them to do thorough line-by-line link and impact extensions, frontline defense, and weigh.

4. Give me the warranting behind your evidence. I do not care if some author says X is true, but I care quite a bit about why X is true. I prefer warrants over unexplained empirics.

5. Do not give me a roadmap – tell me where you're starting and signpost. Make sure you're clear in signposting. I don't want to look all over my flow to figure out where to write.

6. I have some experience judging theory. If you run it, make sure it's actually checking abuse. I'll be less inclined to vote off the shell if you read it because of a relatively minor offense.

7. I've never judged a K. At the very least, it should be topical, and you'll have to accept that I'll determine how to adjudicate it.

8. If you are arguing about how the resolution affects domestic politics (e.g. political capital, elections, Supreme Court, etc.), please have very good warranting as to why your argument is probable. I have a higher threshold for voting on these arguments because I strongly believe that most debate resolutions are unlikely to impact U.S. politics to the extent that you can say specific legislation or electoral results likely do or do not happen. If you do not think you can easily make a persuasive case about why your politics argument is likely, please do not read it or go for it.

Eli Glickman College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 7:51 AM EDT

I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

Yongchun Gong Leland High School 3 rounds

Pranav Govindaraju Archbishop Mitty 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 7:17 AM PDT

Edited: September 29, 2023

Add me to the evidence chain! pranav.govindaraju@gmail.com / mittypolicydocs@gmail.com

I probably won’t look at any of the docs you send unless there’s a disputed card / you say something that piques my curiosity.

General Stuff:

FRAMING IS SUPER IMPORTANT. Define things. Tell me what to weigh. Tell me why I should weigh it a certain way. Do the weighing for me.
Clearly extend and defend your arguments. If I hear something new in the last speech, I’m going to ignore it, and will likely give you a disapproving look.
WARRANT EVERYTHING USING CREDIBLE SOURCES.
MAKE SURE YOUR LINK CHAINS MAKE SENSE.
Signposting is a bare minimum requirement.
Quality > quantity 100% of the time.
Be fair. Be courteous. Be smart.

Theory Stuff:

They're not my favorite, but I evaluate K’s the same way I evaluate any other argument. If you’re gonna die on the K hill, make sure it’s worth the fight. I will judge you harshly if your shell is generic, and poorly linked.
Please try and only run theory arguments when your opponent is legitimately being abusive, unfair, etc. It’s not enough for an interpretation to be “potentially abusive,” it has to be demonstrably so.
Topicality:

T is a voter. But please only bring it up if you genuinely believe there’s a violation. For instance, I won’t really buy arguments about how an aff interpretation is abusive if you clearly still have enough grounds to debate on.

Please do not run a RVI. I rarely buy them. If you do decide to run it, make sure you make an absolutely gorgeous argument that’s just so compelling, it moves me to tears.
K Aff arguments are fine, just make sure they stem directly from the resolution (at minimum).
Open to arguments about the “role of the ballot,” but within reason. My ballot is only as powerful as you can convince me it is.

Parli Specific:

If you win conclusively on framework, you have an exceedingly high chance of winning the round.
Justify and defend your weighing mechanisms right from the get go. If it’s a value round, I better hear a value criterion.
Make observations whenever necessary. Tell me what the topic does or does not imply/assume.
I love direct clashes. Go line by line as much as possible in the rebuttals.
Quality of argumentation >>> quantity of cites. I will not penalize you for being unable to find multiple pieces of carded evidence during a 20 min prep period, but I will penalize you for having poor argument selection and weak rhetoric.
Use POIs strategically. If your question does nothing to trip up your opponent/help your own case, you’ve wasted your time.
I flow everything. If something new is brought up in the last speech, I will notice. Feel free to make a Point of Order if you hear a violation as long as you’re not rude with it.
Last speech should JUST be framework + voters. All I want are the key issues, and an explanation for why you’ve won when viewed through the prevailing framework.
Refer above to my thoughts on theory usage

PF Specific:

Use cross-ex strategically, and effectively. If a debate is too close to call on the flow, I sometimes use cross-ex as a tiebreaker. If cross-ex is also evenly matched, I vote on speaks.
Every claim should be warranted with high quality evidence. Don’t paraphrase or insert your own analysis. Source indictments are encouraged and are sometimes enough for me to drop an argument.
Creativity is rewarded. I love nuanced arguments as long as they are topical, and have credibility.
Quality of argumentation >>> quantity of cites.
Avoid ridiculous terminal impacts. You know what I’m referring to.
Extend arguments through every speech if you want me to weigh them (sike! You should be doing the weighing for me. Extend if you want me to listen to you).
Stick to voters in the FFs as much as possible. Just tell me why you win.
Refer above to my thoughts on theory usage

Speed:

Has a place in circuit policy and LD, has a place in PF on rare occasions, and has no place in Parli whatsoever.
If you do go fast, please slow down on tags and cites, and pause between claims. If you’re unintelligible while spreading, I’ll say clear. If you get egregiously bad with it, I’ll just stop flowing.
I haven't judged fast rounds in a couple of years, so I do prefer a moderate pace if possible.

Speaker Points:

Speaking well is important to me, irrespective of the event. I view speaker points as being 25% coherence/effective articulation, 25% organization (does your flow and order make sense) and 50% strategic decision making/argumentation.

Here’s an rough estimate of how I will score:

29+ → Top 10 speaker, should make it to late elims

28+ → Should at least break

27-28 → Average

Below 27 → You did something I didn’t like and I took punitive measures

If you are openly disrespectful towards your opponents, the judges, spectators, or even your own partner, I will kill your speaks. If you do something egregious, I won’t hesitate to drop your ballot. Doesn’t matter how good you are. This doesn’t include the occasional stray facial expression of course. Just use your best judgment.

Ashley Gu Hire

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 3:30 PM PDT

"politics is basically like among us." -eli glickman, cal '25

hi! i'm a current freshman at uc berkeley majoring in international peace and conflict. i have 3 years of cx and pf experience under ian beier at college prep where its a trend for paradigms to be annoyingly long. if an argument has a warrant, link, and impact i will evaluate it. if you're curious, i mostly ran hard right affs and poliecon theory ks (also basically did 1 off theory on the aff for 3 whole months in 2021).

for everything:

- tech>>>>>>truth, and what is commonly considered "true" outside of the debate round will not be automatically "true" in-round unless its stated in a warrant

- dropped arguments are true arguments/concessions

- speaks start at 28, decreases 0.25 for every clear after a warning

you HAVE to at least try to be clear or else i'd have no idea what to vote on. trust me, i get it. english isn't my first language either-i literally learnt it as i learnt how to do policy. but, if i don't understand what your warrants are i can't vote for you.
lower speaks does not necessarily mean a loss of the round, and higher speaks doesn't mean that you won.
ill give extra credit if you make a your mom joke as part of your argument, follow @beaatberkeley on instagram, or make fun of eli glickman
FOR NOVICE/JV: show me your flow sheet at the end of round for extra credit :))

- i will be timing your speeches but you should do it too

- assume i have very little topic knowledge. explain jargon! if you were confused when you first heard the term/argument i probably will be too

- clipping bad! i will warn once and stop the round if it happens again

- tag team cx is ok as long as everyone agrees

- don't steal prep time everyone gets secondhand embarrassment

- julian vuong says my rfd's make no sense so check judge comments after

- ask me questions before round or after, im always happy to help

my email is ashleygua@berkeley.edu, send me docs

cx:

- i have never debated, judged, or seen a performance aff in my entire life so if that's your strat please strike me

- debate is a game, so run fun arguments! as i've said before, tech over truth so read that impact turn that looks morally questionable and the 5 page aspec block if you think it'll help you win. i've literally won on consult jesus before sooo..

- evidence and impact weighing is important, flesh it out in a way that tells me exactly how to write my ballot. if you don't tell me how your evidence interacts with the other team's i might have to read the ev text and decide myself and i dont want to judge intervene.

-T/Theory: i think theory is underutilized by debaters. all blocks need an impact that is fully extended to the end and i need to hear the warrants clearly in every speech. if its incomprehensible then you have to really convince me why i should still vote for it. i default to competing interps if no fw is bought up. reasonability is a valid argument. vagueness is a valid argument. saying "vague alts bad fairness education they lose" at the last 3 seconds of every speech is not a valid argument unless the other team dropped it.

-K: i did a lot of security, neolib, queerness, and setcol debates and i'm familiar with deleuze, fem ir, and communism stuff. explain everything else especially high theory-i dont remember a single thing about baudrillard. overview and do your link work well. a link of omission is not a link unless you can explain why its uq, and along the same vein, i would like to see links that actually relate to the aff's warrants. on the aff side, i will vote on stuff like "perm do the plan then the alt" or "perm do the part of the alt that's basically the plan" but it needs to be explained. your blocks against the k should also be defending the specifics of the plan in some way.

lowk sad that i have to say this but i should also be able to tell that you understand the k that you're running
i have to understand why your planless aff relates to the topic and how i should frame my ballot

- collapse your arguments at the end i dont want to look at 5 flow sheets during your 2r. please.

- my default ballot role is that it is to judge the winner of the game if no other role is mentioned in round

- you have to tell me whether to judge kick

- shoutout to andrew liang, daniel katari, and all of the other cps debaters currently at uchicago. we have the same debate philosophy so read their paradigms too if you have time

pf:

- lexy green and william pirone taught me everything i know about this, so just go according to their paradigms

- my background is mostly in policy so im probably a bit more lenient towards prog stuff than a lot of other judges

congress:

stolen from theodore gercken:

Congress is such an interesting event because it is structured so differently than the speech and debate categories. But critically, while it is different, I consider it a debate event and expect it to not feel like a many person version of lay PF.

Engagement is amazing; ask questions, give rebuttals. If you are clearly just reading speeches that you wrote at home before the round, you will not get a super high score, and you should expect a comment. Congress is the one speech event with lots of involvement between participants, and it should be a significant part of the round.

stay calm, have fun, and don't be too mean <33

feb 2024: record skews neg rn because people kept running k affs and losing on presumption

Jan Guo Miramonte High School 3 rounds None

Nevan Hanford Hire

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:42 AM PDT

Hello, my name is Nevan Hanford and I competed in the Arizona circuit in high school, participating in PF Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Congress. Overall, I believe speech and debate is about rhetorical, argumentative, and logical skills - please keep those in the fore front of your mind for any given event. I have preferences listed below for PF, Extemp, and Congress, take a brief look at your event. Please ask questions before and after round if you have any and email me if you would like more feedback (also add me to email chain) at njhanford@berkeley.edu

PF Preferences

PF debate is, was, and always will be a debate centered around a general audience. It is my philosophy that PF should be a debate understood and weighed upon through this lens. Therefore, please clearly and persuasively argue why you should win a given round.

I can handle moderate speeds, please don't go over 250 wpm, spreading will ultimately make it harder to communicate and understand arguments, so take that as you will.
I will vote upon any contention clearly warranted and with links. At the end of the day, I am a flow judge and will vote upon which arguments flow through. It is your job as debaters to extend the arguments you want voted upon. Anything dropped in summary will not be voted upon.
Cards/Evidence: Calling cards is an important aspect of debate, I may call cards throughout and after debate. If a card looks suspicious, please tell me that in your speeches and why I shouldn't vote off that evidence. I don't like to intervene, but if needed, at the end of round I will call any cards I don't buy, but you need to call out the oppositions cards!
Etiquette: Please be respectful to each other. I don't mind argumentative cross fires, but if it becomes unnecessarily aggressive, crossfire becomes unproductive. I prefer speakers to stand during speeches, excluding grand cross.
Crossfire: I will listen to cross, however will not flow anything unless extended. Bring up anything you want flowed through during cross in the next speech. DO NOT say your opponent conceded if they didn't actually concede to anything - yelling my opponent conceded doesn't mean they did.
Weighing: Please weigh your arguments against your opponents - this doesn't mean bigger numbers are always better - I will vote on the validity of the argument in addition to the weighing mechanism you provide.
Speaker points: I won't ever give below 27 speaker points unless your disrespectful in round, that being said, I will always give more speaker points for better speaking ability. Extra speaks if you make me laugh in round.

Congress Preferences

Congress is about engaging and collective argumentation amongst the house. That being said:

Speeches should be extemporaneously given with the help of legal notepad. Pre-written speeches will be ranked lower.
Please do not repeat old arguments, congress is about interactive debate - every speech following authorship should contain refutations of the opposing sides arguments.
Congress is supposed to be fun - I love when debaters have fun intros to their speeches, please feel free to.
Evidence: Speeches should contain evidence, however, congress is not PF or LD. Please do not cite evidence as cards - you should be interlacing your arguments with your evidence. Ex: "A recent report from the NY Times found ..." NOT "Carr 15 finds..."
PO: I will be more than willing to rank PO high if they either a) have excellent command of procedure or b) volunteer when more veteran debaters refuse to PO
Please don't have more than 3 speeches in a row on one side - then it is no longer a debate. If you planned on giving an affirmative but there is no negation - flip!

Extemp Preferences

Extemp is my favorite event to judge - it is also often the toughest to judge. When I did extemp, I often didn't know what criteria judges were ranking by. The following is what I will be using in rankings:

Analysis: Extemp is not about reporting on evidence, it is about analyzing evidence in relation to the question. Given this, don't get too far away from the question - stay on topic. Analysis should be the majority of your speech, don't just state evidence and move on. Use evidence as examples to answer the question.
Delivery: This includes projection, eye contact, physical pacing, tone, volume, enunciation, etc... Using a notecard is apart of this event; however, don't let it take away from your delivery. You should be looking at your notecard no more than 10% of the time, I recommend using a notecard for your evidence source and date
Evidence: Please do not make-up or misconstrue evidence, not only is this highly unethical, if I find out your evidence doesn't exist, you will be dropped in my rankings. Please cite your evidence; however, if you don't remember a date or publication - don't make one up. Cite evidence as if you were speaking to a general audience, use common sense - if it is a report, tell me the organization; a research paper, the author; an article, the publication company.

I love extemp: be confident and have fun!

Mahmoud Hassanpour Amador Valley High School 4 rounds None

Wilson He Fairview HS 6 rounds

Paul Hemeseth CK McClatchy High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 3:58 AM PDT

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

Allison Hsu Hire

Kayli Huang Mira Loma High School 6 rounds None

Vincent Huang Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Chethan Hublikar Mission San Jose High School 4 rounds

Benjamin Hughes Fairmont Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 1:59 AM PDT

Public Forum (where you’re most likely to encounter me)

I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge. You'll increase your chances for victory if you use rhetorical devices (pausing, inflection, etc.) to capture my attention for the most crucial aspects of your case; in other words, make me hear you.

Win/Loss

In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I'm a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me; in addition, I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish (constructive to final focus).

I'm less likely to be concerned with cards until there is an actual point of contention. If you feel that your opponent is misrepresenting or misreading a card, please point that out to me; otherwise, it's very unlikely that I will ever ask to see any cards during round.

Speaker Scores

Students earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.I recommend using engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon (without context).

Please Don’t

Rapid speaking

Hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents

Off time roadmaps

Links to nuclear war (unless the resolution is specifically connected to nuclear disarmament)

Experience/Background (if you’re interested)

I participated in parliamentary debate during college. Currently, I coach primarily at the middle school and (sometimes high school) level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with over 20 years of coaching experience.

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College)

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies/History, English Language Arts, School Administration

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)

Shania Hunt The Harker School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 6:45 AM PDT

Updated March 2023(note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview

I debated for Northland and graduated in 2014. Mostly competed in LD, but also did a bunch of other events and worlds schools debate for Team USA. Coached Northland for a bit, then Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, then I was the director of the MS speech and debate program at Harker for 3 years. Now, I'm in law school and an assistant coach for Harker.

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Barb Ixba Westlake High School 6 rounds

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is Bixba@eanesisd.net.

CX - I'm a Policy Maker, so I want to vote for something rather than against something. I like a NON-TOPICAL Counter Plans or a Kritik with a good Alternative. I do not vote for Disclosure Theory, Contact Theory, Dress Code Theory, etc. Please debate the topic; that is where I will vote. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. If you spread, you must be intelligible; if I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I will give one verbal request for you to be "clear", and if you are still incomprehensible I will close my laptop or drop my pen to nonverbally indicate to you that I have stopped flowing. Have all evidence you plan to read up on your computer. If you take your time sharing evidence when requested, that is free prep time for your opponent, and I do not expect them to stop prepping while you find the card(s) to send. While I prefer closed CX, I will entertain open CX, but be careful not to dominate your partner as that could cost them speaker points. Of course remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent will cost you speaker points.

LD - I guess I'm an old school LD judge. I expect to be able to identify your Value and Criterion and that is the lens by which I weigh the round. I do not vote for Disclosure Theory, Contact Theory, Dress Code Theory, etc. Please debate the topic; that is where I will vote. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. If you spread, you must be intelligible; if I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I will give one verbal request for you to be "clear", and if you are still incomprehensible I will close my laptop or drop my pen to nonverbally indicate to you that I have stopped flowing. Evidence sharing is not "off the clock" and will count toward prep and/or speaking time. While I prefer closed CX, I will entertain open CX, but be careful not to dominate your partner as that could cost them speaker points. Of course remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent will cost you speaker points.

PF - I see PF as a watered down CX debate minus the Plan Text, if I'm being honest. So, see the paradigm for CX above please.

Congress - Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent may cost you the ballot. Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with scholarly sources. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet persuasive.

World Schools - Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent may cost you the ballot. Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with scholarly sources. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet persuasive.

Interp - The most important thing to me in an Interp performance is to portray genuine emotion. If you really feel it, the audience will too. Be a good audience member by avoiding distractions and giving your complete attention to the competitor performing at the moment. Being a good audience member also means staying the entire time unless you are cross entered as well as providing appropriate nonverbal feedback to the performance. Please don't "mean mug" or attempt to nonverbally intimidate another competitor. I appreciate a good binder trick and a creative approach while maintaining author's intent. In the Intro, I would ideally like a conversational tone that allows me to meet you, displays your understanding and connection to the subject matter, and sets up the performance well. Literature that contains profanity does not bother me as long as the profanity adds something to the message and is not superfluous.

Extemp - Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with an introduction, 2-3 main points, and a conclusion. I encourage 7-10 scholarly source citations throughout and would like to see that the sources add substance to the speech. Using a variety of types of sources such as state, national, and international as well as think tanks, periodicals, and books adds to the overall credibility of the presentation. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet informative or persuasive.

Lynbrook-Alpesh Jain Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Manish Jaiswal Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Yogini Jamdar Leland High School

Niyati Jani Lynbrook HS 1 rounds

Ankur Jaswal Folsom High School 2 rounds

Yuansheng Jin Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Caitlyn Jones George Washington HS 6 rounds

Sky Juinio The Nueva School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 2:00 PM PDT

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Manushak Karapetyan Burbank High School 1 rounds

Madhu Kavali Mission San Jose High School 4 rounds

Minsup Kim Gunn Sr High School 3 rounds

Kyle Kishimoto Fairmont Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 3:22 PM PDT

Berkeley elims update: elim rounds are open to the public, if you try to ask people to not watch the round I will be incredibly displeased.

About Me

Kyle (he/they), did circuit PF (and some policy and extemp on the state level) and coached for Fairmont. Studied math education at Cal, and didn't debate in college. Please use my first name and don't call me "judge", I promise I'm not much older than you.

I've judged rather infrequently over the past three years - I still keep a very good flow by PF standards (can still get cites for every card), but keep in mind my rust and don't speak too quickly. I can deal with cards being spread IF you are slow on tags and cites AND your cards are long enough that you're not spreading 12 words and going back to slow. I won't flow off a speech doc.

Email me at kylek@berkeley.edu if you have any questions or to add me to email chains.

You can make warrants in round about why I should change any the beliefs listed below unless you are advocating for exclusionary behavior or academic dishonesty.

General

Tabula rasa is a myth; the best a judge can do is explain the ways in which they are not tab before the round. So read this.

The best way to win in front of me is to win one piece of offense, properly extend it in each speech, and convince me it's the most important thing through weighing. I strongly prefer you going very in depth on one argument than trying to win every argument and undercovering everything.

Every claim you make should be warranted, and the team who does better comparative warrant analysis will almost always win. Empirics/evidence without warrants mean almost nothing to me.

Tech > truth but you'll find true arguments are very easy to warrant. Read above. You can (and maybe should) warrant to me why I should be truth > tech on theory or structural violence arguments.

Rebuttal

Neither side can read new independent offense in rebuttal (theory arguments where the violation occurred in the previous speech is an exception). Weighing and turns are obviously fine, but reading a new contention as an "overview" is not cool.

If you only read one section from this paradigm, make it this one: if you are the second speaking team, you need to respond to everything from the first rebuttal related to the arguments that you intend to go for in summary and final focus. If you want to go for a contention in your case, you better cleanly frontline at least one link and impact. Anything said in the first rebuttal that isn't addressed in the second is considered dropped.

Summary/Final Focus

Go for one thing and go for it hard. I love early collapse strategies (as early as the rebuttal speeches). Go for one of the six links into your case, go for a turn, concede defense against your own case to kick out of a turn, make smart decisions and be creative.

Three minute summaries are one minute too long. There's no excuse to not cleanly extend everything you want to go for. This means frontlining, and properly extending warrants and impacts. I need a full link chain extended to grant you offense on an argument.

Do meta weighing - why is your impact that wins on magnitude more important than your opponents' impact that wins on probability? Don't just use buzzwords. And saying "we read link defense, therefore we outweigh because their impact is nonexistent" is NOT WEIGHING. Assume both arguments are true and show why yours is better.

If it's not in summary, it better not be in final focus. This applies to both offense and defense. I have no tolerance for debaters who disrespect their partners, and one of the most common ways it appears in-round is when a second speaker's final focus is nothing like their partner's summary. Your speaker points will suffer greatly if this happens.

"Progressive" Arguments

Theory should be used to set norms and check against abuse. I'm not the person to read frivolous theory in front of.

Here are some of my general beliefs on theory arguments, but keep in mind that I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote against these beliefs. You should disclose and I'll vote for disclosure theory. I'm ambivalent on specific disclosure interps (ex: round reports), but please understand the inherent differences between PF and policy before you read these arguments. I don't have any predisposed leanings on paraphrasing, but misconstruction of evidence is academic dishonesty and will be treated as such. Even if you paraphrase you should have all your cut cards in one document and evidence exchanges should take less than a minute.

On RVIs: you shouldn't win just for following the rules, but you should also be able to argue that theory trades off with topic education and therefore is a voter. I've been told some folks disagree on whether that means I default yes or no RVIs, but that is my baseline stance. Again, I will not hack for/against any of these arguments, but I want to list my general dispositions here for full transparency's sake. Ask me before round if you have any questions.

I will vote for your K or policy argument with non-utilitarian kritikal framing. If you're reading the former, keep in mind I'm not super familiar with the literature so warrant and explain well. K vs. FW debates are among my favorite to watch and evaluate. Both teams in a K round should warrant why I should prefer their model of debate (i.e. have a good ROTB argument). I generally believe K's should have some link to the topic.

Things I would be a very good judge for: LARP vs. LARP, disclosure, K vs. FW, LARP with K framing

Things I would be a pretty good judge for: LARP vs. K, other theory, K vs. K

Things I would be a very bad judge for: non-topical K, frivolous theory, tricks (really any argument that doesn't have a claim, warrant, and impact at bare minimum)

Respect your opponents and your partner. Have fun.

Maryrose Kohan George Washington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 3:13 AM MDT

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

Israel Kolade Maranatha High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 1:24 AM PDT

Personal Info:

Email: i_kolade@mhs-hs.org
Google voice number: (818) 928-5580

Background:

Old School UK Parliamentary debate experience at the High School and College levels (think Oxford Union).
First year (2023-34) coaching and judging debate in the US.
BA (Hons) Philosophy & Theology @ University of London '17
Postgraduate Diploma in Science Education @ UCL Institute of Education '19
MDiv @ Fuller Seminary '23; MBA @ WashU '26
Chemistry and Classics Teacher

__________________________________________

Important Notes:

I'm a strong believer in the classical rhetorical tradition (a la Aristotle, Cicero, and Augustine) of debate. This means that I do not value the modern gamified approach to debate. Debate is not a game, it's an art.
In that spirit, I pay particular attention to: (1) Logos, (2) Pathos, and (3) Ethos. Logos refers to content and the logic of argument (the 'raw words' themself). Pathos refers to passion, emotion, and the mode of delivery. Ethos refers to the ethics of your arguments; primarily your professionalism, and the veracity and detail of your research.
Speed reading cases won't work for me; I'd much rather you slow down and ensure I am tracking with each and every point you make.
Do not send me anything for me to read; I'll simply judge on the spoken presentations.
All the best!

Recommended Reading (because, why not): (1) Aristotle's Rhetoric + (2) Cicero's On the Orator

__________________________________________

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

(Taken from the 2020 Yale Tournament)

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Tanish Kumar Archbishop Mitty 5 rounds

Hao Li Miramonte High School 3 rounds

Holiday Li Leland High School 3 rounds

Zhi Li The Golden State Academy 6 rounds

Lori Liang Miramonte High School None

Caden Lin The Harker School 3 rounds

Ed Lingo Los Altos High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 2:48 AM PDT

TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). Judged mostly open/varsity parli Fall 2018 - Spring 2022 with increasing amounts of PF in the last year or two and occasional LD & Policy judging throughout . Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.

General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 200+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.

If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com

==============================================

PF Debate Notes:

I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. But I am still learning some of the PF-specific terminology. Even though I have only judged perhaps a dozen PF rounds before, here's a few notes I hope will help you.

- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow or to draw my attention to particular impacts, but there is no need to individually extend every element of the contention. You can save the analysis for weighing.

- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.

- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).

- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.

==============================================

Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):

** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.

Default Framework:

In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.

Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.

With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.

Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.

Theory:

Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).

Speed:

As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.

Kritiks:

K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.

Counterplans:

Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.

Dropped Arguments:

I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.

New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:

I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.

Tag Teaming:

Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.

Speaker Location:

Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.

==============================================

Policy Debate Notes:

- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.

- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.

- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.

- I know very little K literature.

- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

==========================================

Experience:

My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.

Chris Lippi Miramonte High School None

Hongming Liu Amador Valley High School 4 rounds

Simon Liu Leland High School

Xavier Liu Bellarmine College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:20 AM PDT

Hi y'all! I am a former speech and debater for Bellarmine College Preparatory in the Coast Forensics League. I have finished my undergrad at UC Berkeley, studying Political Science and Philosophy. Although I have done speech for a majority of my four years competing in high school, I have done a year of slow Policy Debate and was a Parliamentary Debater during my senior year of high school. I am now an Interp coach at Bellarmine College Prep and a Parliamentary/Public Forum Debate and Extemp Coach at The Nueva School. These past few years, I have been running Tabrooms at Tournaments as compared to judging. And even if I have been judging, I am almost always in the Speech and Congress judging pool.

The tl;dr: Be clear, concise, and kind during debate. I will listen to and vote on anything GIVEN that I understand it and it's on my flow. Spread and run arguments at your own risk. Evidence and analysis are a must, clash and weigh - treat me as a flay (flow + lay) judge.

If you want more precise information, read the event that you are competing in AND the "Overall Debate Stuff" if you are competing in a Debate.

Table of Contents for this paradigm:

1. Policy Debate

2. Parliamentary Debate

3. Public Forum Debate

4. Lincoln Douglas Debate

5. Overall Debate Stuff (Speed, Theory, K's, Extending Dropped Arguments, etc.)

6. IE's (Because I'm extra!) (Updated on 01/2/2024!)

7. Congress

For POLICY DEBATE:

I feel like I'm more policymaker oriented, although I started learning about Policy Debate from a stock issues lens, and am more than comfortable defaulting to stock issues if that's what y'all prefer. I'm really trying to see whether the plan is a good idea and something that should be passed. Offensive arguments and weighing are key to winning the debate for me. For example, even if the Neg proves to me that the plan triggers a disadvantage and a life threatening impact, if the Aff is able to minimize the impact or explain how the impact pales in comparison to the advantages the plan actually offers, I'd still feel comfortable voting Aff. If asked to evaluate the debate via stock issues, the Neg merely needs to win one stock issue to win the debate.

Evidence and analysis are absolutely crucial, and good analysis can beat bad evidence any day! Evidence and link turns are also great, but make sure that you are absolutely CLEAR about what you are arguing and incredibly explanatory about how this piece of evidence actually supports your argument.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Topicality - Yeah, it's a voting issue. It's the Negative's burden to explain the Affirmative's violation and to provide specific interpretations that the Affirmative needs to adhere to. Further, if T is run, I must evaluate whether the plan is Topical BEFORE I evaluate the rest of the debate.

For Theory, Ks, etc. see the "Overall Debate Stuff" below.

I'm not too up on most arguments on this year's topic, so again, arguments need to be explained clearly and efficiently.

For PARLI DEBATE:

In Parli, I will judge the debate first in terms of the stronger arguments brought up on each side through the framework provided and debated by the AFF (PROP) and the NEG (OPP). If you win framework, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such. If it's a Policy resolution round, I tend to judge by stock issue and DA's/Ad's (see the above Policy Debate paradigm). If a fact or value resolution round, I tend to judge through framework first before evaluating any arguments that come afterwards.

Similar to Policy, by the end of the 1 NR, I should know exactly what arguments you are going for. Voting issues in each of the rebuttals are a MUST! Crystallize the round for me and tell me exactly what I will be voting on at the end of the debate.

In regards to POO's, I do not protect the flow. It is up to YOU to POO your opponents. New arguments that are not POO'd may be factored into my decision if not properly POO'd. POO's should not be abused. Be clear to give me what exactly what the new argument/impact/evidence/etc. is.

I expect everyone to take at least 1-2 POI(s) throughout their speeches. Anything short is low key just rude, especially if your opponent gives you the opportunity to ask questions in their speech. Anything more is a time suck for you. Be strategic and timely about when and how you answer the question.

For PF:

I strongly believe that PF should remain an accessible type of debate for ALL judges. While I do understand and am well versed in more faster/progressive style debate, I would prefer if you slowed down and really took the time to speak to me and not at me. Similar to Policy and Parli, I want arguments to be clearly warranted and substantiated with ample evidence. As the below section explains, I'd much rather have fewer, but more well developed arguments instead of you trying to pack the flow with 10+ arguments that are flaky and unsubstantiated at best.

For PF, I will side to using an Offense/Defense paradigm. I'm really looking for Offense on why your argument matters and really want you to weigh your case against your opponents'. Whoever wins the most arguments at the end of the round may not necessarily win the round, since I think weighing impacts and arguments matters more. Please make sure that you really impact out arguments and really give me a standard or framework to weigh your arguments on! So for example, even if the Pro team wins 3 out of 4 arguments, if the Con is able to show that the one argument that they win clearly outweighs the arguments from the Pro, I may still pick up the Con team on the ballot. WEIGH , WEIGH, WEIGH. I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH! Really explain why your impacts and case connect with your framework. Similar to LD, if both teams agree on framework, I'd rather you focus on case debate or add an impact rather than focus on the framework debate. Though if both teams have different frameworks, give me reasons and explain why I should prefer yours over your opponents'.

The second rebuttal should both focus on responding to your opponents' refutations against your own case AND should refute your opponents' case. If you bring up dropped arguments that are not extended throughout the debate in the Final Focus speeches, I will drop those specific arguments. If it's in the Final Focus, it should be in the Final Summary, and if it's in the Final Summary, it should be in Rebuttal. I will consider an argument dropped if it is not responded to by you or your teammate after the rebuttal speeches. For more information regarding extensions, please look at the "Overall Debate Stuff" section of this paradigm.

Please use the Final Focus as a weighing mechanism of why YOUR team wins the round. I'd prefer it to be mainly summarizing your side's points and really bringing the debate to a close.

Most of all, be kind during crossfire.

For Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Similar to PF, while I did not compete in LD, I have judged a few rounds and understand the basics of this debate. I am more old-school in that I believe that LD is something that focuses more on arguing about the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The Affirmative does not need to argue for a specific plan, rather, just needs to defend the resolution. However, I have judged a handful of fast rounds in LD and do understand more progressive argumentation from Policy Debate. I have also judged policy/plan centered LD rounds.

So there's framework debate and then we get to the main meat with contentions. With the framework debate, I'm open to essentially any Value or V/C that you want to use. If you and your opponent's Value and V/C are different, please provide me reasons why I should prefer your Value and V/C over your opponents. Weigh them against each other and explain to me why you should prefer yours over your opponent's. Please also tie your contentions that you have in the main meat of your speeches back to your Value and V/C. For example (using the anonymous sources resolution from 2018-2019), if you're Neg and your Value is democracy and your V/C is transparency because the more transparent news organizations are the more accountable they can be, your contentions should show me that in the your world, we maximize transparency, which allows for the best democracy. The best cases are ones which are able to link the Value and V/C seamlessly into their contentions.

If you win the framework debate, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such.

If you and your opponent agree with V/C and V, move on. Don't spend extra time on stuff that you can spend elsewhere. Add an impact, add a DA, add an advantage, add a contention, etc.

By the time we get to rebuttals, I should have a decent grasp about what voting issues I will be voting on in the debate. A lot of the 1 AR should really be cleaning up the debate as a whole and weighing responses by the Neg with the Aff case. 1 NR should really spend a lot of time focusing on really summarizing the debate as a whole and should give me specific voting issues that the debate essentially boils down to. Feel free to give voting issues at the end of throughout your speech. They usually help me crystallize how I will be voting.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on which side best persuades me of their position. While this debater is the one which usually wins the main contentions on each side of the flow, it may not be. I usually think of offense/defense when deciding debates! As a result, please WEIGH the contentions against each other, especially when we get into the rebuttal speeches. Even if you only win one contention, if you are able to effectively weigh it against your opponent's contentions, I will have no issue voting for you. Weigh, weigh, weigh - I cannot emphasize this enough!

***Here's an example of how I decided a round with the Standardized Testing resolution: The AFF's value was morality, defined as what was right and wrong and their V/C was welfare, defined as maximizing the good of all people. The NEG's framework was also morality, defined in the same was as the AFF's but their V/C was fair comparison, defined as equal opportunities regardless of background. Suppose AFF dropped framework, I would then go on to evaluate the debate under the NEG's Value and V/C. AFF had two contentions: 1. Discrimination - Standardized testing increases discrimination towards low income and minority communities, and 2. Curriculum - standardized testing forces teachers to teach outdated information and narrow curriculum thus, decreasing student exposure to social sciences and humanities. NEG had two contentions: 1. GPA Inflation is unfair - standardized testing allows for the fairest comparison between students since GPA could be inflated, and 2. Performance Measurement - the SAT accurately measured academic performance for students. Thus, in making my decision, I would first ask, how do each of the contentions best maximize fair comparison and thus, maximize morality. Then I would go down the flow and decide who won each contention. I do this by asking how each argument and responses functioned in the debate. For example, did the AFF show me that standardized testing discriminates against people of color and low-income households? Or was the NEG able to show that adequate resources devoted to these communities not only raised scores, but also ensured that these communities we better prepared for the exam? Another example, was the NEG able to prove that if colleges no longer accepted standardized testing scores, would grade inflation result in impossible comparisons between students? Or could the AFF prove that grade inflation would not occur and that there would be heavier reliance on essays and not GPA? After deciding who won which contention, I analyze the debate as a whole - Was the GPA contention outweighed by other issues throughout the debate? (ex: Even if NEG won the GPA Contention, did AFF win the other three contentions and prove that the other three contentions outweighed NEG's winning contention? Or if AFF only won one contention, did that ONE contention outweigh any of the other contentions the NEG had?) Ultimately, the winner of the debate is who BEST persuaded me of their side through each of the contentions brought forth in the debate.

I'm also totally fine with policy type arguments in an LD round. However, while I did do a year of slow Policy Debate and feel more comfortable evaluating these type of arguments, I think that Policy and LD Debate are two different events and should thus be treated as such. Unless both debaters are comfortable with running Policy Debate type arguments in round, stick to the more traditional form of debating over the morality of the resolution. If both debaters are fine running more policy type arguments, go for it!

Overall Debate Stuff:

I'm kinda stupid - write my ballot for me. It is your job to help me understand complex arguments, not the other way around. Don't expect me to understand everything if you're spreading through an argument and you can certainly not expect me to vote on an argument that I don't understand. In other words, "you do you", but if it's not on the flow or I don't understand it, I won't vote on it.

Speed - Consider me a slow lay flow judge. While I can handle medium-slow speed, I'd prefer it you just spoke in a conversational manner as if you were talking to your parents at the dinner table. If you want to run a Kritik, Counterplan, Theory, etc. go ahead and do so, just make sure that you say it in a speed I can understand it in. Remember, if you go too fast to the point where I just put my pen down and stop flowing, your arguments aren't making it on my flow and I will not vote on them. I will yell "SLOW" and "CLEAR" a maximum of three combined times in your speech if you are going too fast or I cannot hear/understand you. If you see me put my pen down and stop flowing, you have lost me completely. Moreover, try to avoid using fast debate terminology within the round. I may not be able to understand what you are saying if it all goes over my head.

Truth v. Tech - I feel like I have a very rudimentary understanding of these terms, so if you are a debater who loves running K Arguments, Theory, 10+ DA's, likes to spread a bunch, and is unwilling to adapt to a lay judge, do us both a favor and strike me. I run a very fine and nuanced line with truth v. tech. I feel like I'm slightly tech > truth, but ONLY SLIGHTLY so. I will do my absolute best to evaluate the round solely based on the flow, but I do think that there are arguments that are just bad, like (generically listing) "racism/homophobia/ageism/poverty good" or just linking everything to nuclear war. Let me illustrate this with an example:

The Neg tries to prove that an excess of immigration within the United States will result in Trump starting a nuclear war against country "x" as a diversionary tactic because he is losing his hardline immigration battle. Personally, I do not believe this will happen, but if this is the only argument left in the round and the Affirmative drops this and the Negative extends this throughout the debate, I will have no choice but to vote Neg to prevent more lives from being lost. However, if the Affirmative is able to show me that nuclear war will not occur or can effectively delink or turn the Negative's argument of nuclear war or can outweigh nuclear war (i.e. benefits of passing plan outweigh the possibility of nuclear war, which only has a close-to-zero percent chance of happening), I will be more inclined to believe that the Affirmative has won this argument based on any evidence/turn they give me, but also based on what I personally believe will happen. I will not arbitrarily insert my own beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters create a situation in which that case occurs, as with the example seen above, I will be inclined to vote for the debater that has the more true argument and the argument that makes more sense logically with me.

Tabula Rasa - As seen with the example above, I'm not Tabula Rasa. I really don't think that any judge can truly be "tab," for who am I to decide what is true? Again, I won't arbitrarily insert my beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters have an argument that I believe is "true," I will be more inclined to buy that argument unless a team convinces me otherwise. In other words, there exist arguments that I am more likely to agree with and arguments I am more likely to buy and vote on. Either way, I will evaluate the round from what I have written on the flow. Furthermore, take these examples:

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California while the Negative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. In making my decision, I will side with the latter based on outside knowledge and because it is the argument I think is more "true" based on outside knowledge.

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California. The Negative does not respond to this claim. While I do not think that the Affirmative's claim is true, the Negative does not respond to this argument and thus, I will consider the Affirmative's argument as valid and evaluate the round as such.

Judge Intervention - Take this as you will, but I strongly also believe that I as a judge should not arbitrarily intervene during the debate and should listen to the arguments presented in the round as brought up by the debaters. So like what I wrote under the Policy Debate part of the paradigm, go ahead and run whatever argument you want. As long as I understand it, I will put it on my flow. See "Speed" and "K's/Theory" portion of this section for more information about what arguments you should run if I'm your judge. It is ultimately a debater's job to help me understand their/his/her argument, not vice versa. Moreover, I will not weigh for you - that being said, if neither team runs arguments that I understand and neither team weighs, I will be forced to intervene.

~~~

Brief note: OK, so I get that the non interventionist approach contradicts the fact that I am more inclined to vote for an argument that I think is "true." As a judge I can promise you that I will flow what I can listen to and will evaluate the round holistically. I am an incredibly nuanced person and I think my paradigm reflects this (perhaps a little too much)...

~~~

PLEASE CLASH WITH ARGUMENTS! CLASH! CLASH! CLASH! Don't let the debate devolve into two boats sailing past each other in the night. At that point, it's completely pointless. I'd also prefer fewer well developed arguments over that of many arguments loosely tied together. Please don't brief barf or pack the flow with pointless arguments which aren't well developed. I may not include undeveloped arguments in my RFD if I deem that they are pointless or unimportant to the debate overall. Also, over the course of the debate as a whole, I would prefer fewer, but more well developed arguments, rather than a ton of arguments that go unsubstantiated.

Tag-Team CX/Flex Prep - I'm fine with this, just make sure that you're the one talking for most of the time. Your partner can't and shouldn't control your time. It is your Cross-Examination/Cross-fire after all. Same with speeches - essentially, don't have your partner be constantly interjecting you when you are speaking - you should be the one talking! If it seems as if your partner is commandeering your cross-examination or speech time, I will lower your speaks. Also totally fine with flex prep - you may use your prep time however you'd like, but since this time is not considered "official" cross-ex time, whether or not the opponent actually responds to the question is up to them. While I do not flow CX, I do pay close attention and if I look confused, I am more often thinking intensely about what you said, rather than emoting disagreement.

Roadmaps + Overviews - Please have them, and roadmaps may absolutely be off-time! I literally love/need roadmaps! They help me organize my flow make the debate/your speech a lot easier to follow! There should be a decent overview at the top of (at the minimum), each rebuttal - condense the round for me and summarize why you win each of the major arguments that comes up. Don't spend too much time on the overview, but don't ignore it.

K's and Theory - I'm not familiar with any literature at all! While you may choose to run K's or Theory (it is your round after all), I will do my very best to try and understand your argument. If I do not understand what you are saying, then I will not put it on my flow or vote on it. If you go slow, I will be more inclined to understand you and flow what you are saying. Again, not on the flow/don't understand = I won't vote on it.

Conditionality - This is fine. Though if you decide to kick anything, kick it earlier in the debate, don't wait until the 2NR unless it is strategic to do so. Please also make sure that your arguments are not contradictory - I have had to explain to teams about why running a Capitalism K on how the government perpetuates capitalism and then also running a CP where the Federal Government is the actor is ironic. In any case, kick the whichever argument is weaker and explain why Condo is good. Also, don't advocate for an unconditional position and then proceed to kick it or drop it. That would be bad.

Cross-applying - Don't just say "cross-apply my responses with Contention 1 on the Aff Case with Contention 2 on the Neg Case." This doesn't mean anything. Show me specifically how you group arguments together and explain how exactly your responses are better than your opponent's. Moreover, show me how your cross-application effectively answers their arguments - Does it de-link a disadvantage? Does it turn an argument? Does it effectively make Aff's actor in the plan powerless? Does it take out a crucial piece of evidence? What exactly does your cross-application do and how does it help you win the debate?

Dropped Arguments + Extensions - In regards to dropped contentions, subpoints, or impacts, I will personally extend all contentions, arguments, impacts, etc. that you individually tell me to extend. For all those arguments that were not extended and were dropped by the opponent, I will NOT personally extend myself. You must tell me to extend all dropped arguments or I will consider it dropped by you as well. All dropped contentions, subpoints, impacts, etc. should not be voter issues for the side that dropped it. I will drop all voter issues that were stated in the rebuttal if they were dropped by your side.

I did Interp, so my facial expressions will be turned "on" for the debate. If I like something, I will probably be nodding at you when you speak. Please do not feel intimidated if I look questioned or concerned when you speak. It does not show that you are losing the debate, nor does it show that you will be getting less speaks. However, if I seems like I am genuinely confused or have just put my pen down, you have lost me.

In regards to all debates, write the ballot for me, especially in the rebuttal speeches. Tell me why you win the round, and weigh arguments against each other!

ALSO, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, and SIGNPOST. The easier you make it for me to follow you in the round, the easier I can flow and be organized, and the easier you can win. Trust me, nothing's worse than when you're confused. KEEP THE ROUND CLEAN!

Don't be a jerk. It's the easiest way to lose speaker points. (Or even perhaps the round!) Good POI's/CX Q's and a good sense of humor get you higher speaks.

Links/Impacts - Be smart with this. I'm not a big fan of linking everything to nuclear war, unless you can prove to be that there is beyond a reason of a doubt that nuclear war occurs. So two things about impacts/links - the more practical and pragmatic you can make them, the better. I'm more inclined to buy well warranted and substantiated links to arguments. For example:

Plea bargaining --> incarceration --> cycle of poverty (These arguments are linked together and make logical sense. If we added "nuclear war" after "cycle of poverty," I'll just stare at you weirdly.)

Second, truth v. tech also applies with impacts and links, so if the Aff brings up a nuclear war will be caused by Trump as a diversionary tactic due to more immigration, and the Neg refutes that logically by taking out a link, I'll probably buy their argument (see the truth v. tech example I give). If the Neg doesn't respond, then the argument is valid. However, if the Neg is able to essentially group arguments and respond to them while weighing and shows me that even if they didn't answer this argument, Neg wins most everything else, I may still vote Neg.

I firmly believe that debate is not a game. It is an educational opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and to communicate efficiently between groups of people. Please don't try to make debate more complicated than it already is.

In regards to evidence in all debates: Yes, you need it - and should have a good amount of it. I know you only get 20 minutes to prep in Parli, and that you're not allowed internet prep (at some tournaments). But I need you to substantiate all claims with evidence. It doesn't have to be all subpoints and for every argument, but I will definitely be less inclined to vote for you if you only have one citation in the 19 minutes you speak, while your opponents have 7+ citations in the total 19 minutes they speak. Do not give me 7 minutes of analytics with no evidence at all. More evidence = more compelling. That being said, make sure that you also have a very strong amount of analytics as well. Don't just give me a lot of evidence without good analytics. Good analysis props up evidence and evidence supports good analysis. I would also much rather have a 4-5 good/solid pieces of evidence over 10+ trashy cards that don't help your case or add much to the debate. Essentially what I'm trying to say here is that good analysis > bad evidence any day, any round, and QUALITY > QUANTITY!!!

Do not CHEAT and make up cards, or clip cards, or anything of the like. Just don't. I will give you an automatic loss if you choose to do so. (Please don't make me do this...)

Time yourselves using whatever method you feel comfortable with! iPhone, SmartWatch, computer timer, etc. If you are taking prep, please announce it for me and your competitor to hear. Flashing or sending documents does not count as prep, though this needs to be taken care of in an expeditious manner. If you are caught abusing prep time, I will tank your speaks.

WEIGH - WEIGH - WEIGH!!! This is SO IMPORTANT, especially when debates come down to the wire. The team that does the better weighing will win the round if it's super tight! I won't weigh for you. Make my job easy and weigh. Again, as pieced together from previous parts of the paradigm, even if a team drops 3 out of the 5 arguments, if the team is able to show that the two arguments they do win outweigh the 3 arguments they lost, I will be more inclined to vote for that team that does the better weighing. I also love world comparisons, so weigh the world of the Affirmative and Negative and tell me which one is better for society, people, etc. after the implementation or non-implementation of the plan!

I will not disclose after the round (if I'm judging in the Coast Forensics League)! I usually disclose after invites though, given enough time. Either way, if you have questions about the round, please feel free to come and ask me if you aren't in round! I'll make myself visible throughout the tournament! If you can't find me, please feel free to contact me at xavier.liu17@gmail.com if you have any questions about the round! Please also feel free to contact me after the tournament regarding RFDs and comments!

FOR IE'S:

Ok. Now onto my favorite events of Speech and Debate. The IE's. First, I did Interp for a lot of my years competing, specifically DI, DUO, and OI. I've also done EXPOS (INF) as well. Take the Platform Events paradigm with a grain of salt. While there are many things that you could do to get the "1" in the room, I am particularly looking at several things that put you over the top.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

For Extemp (IX, DX) - I will flow your speech as thoroughly as I can. Please expect to have CITATIONS - at the minimum: news organization and date (month, day, year). An example: "According to Politico on February 13th of 2019..." If you have the author, even better - "John Smith, a columnist for Politico, writes on February 13th of 2019..." Please note that fabricating or making up citations or evidence is cheating and you will be given the lowest rank in the room and reported to Tab. You must have strong analysis within your speech. This analysis should supplement your evidence and your analysis should explain why your evidence is pertinent in answering the question. Good evidence and analysis trumps pretty delivery any day. Most importantly, make sure that you ANSWER THE QUESTION - I cannot give you a high rank if you do not answer the question.

For Impromptu (IMP) - I will flow your points as thoroughly as I can. I expect to see a thesis at the end of the intro and two to three well developed examples and points that support your thesis. While you do not have to have citations like Extemp, I would like to see specificity. Good analysis is also important and you need to make sure that your analysis ties into the thesis that you give me at the top of the intro. I also don't really like personal stories as examples and points in the Impromptu. I feel like personal stories are really generic and can always be canned. However, if done well and tied in well, personal stories do enhance the Impromptu! Use your discretion during prep time to decide if you want to use a personal story in your speech and how effective your personal story is. I also give bonus points and higher ranks to originality rather than canned speeches. Most importantly, make sure that you clearly develop your points and examples and explain why they apply to your thesis. I will default to California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) rules for Impromptu prep - 2 minutes of prep, with 5 minutes speaking - unless told otherwise by Tab/Tournament Officials.

Time signals for Impromptu and Extemp: With Extemp, I will give you time signals from 6 minutes left and down, Impromptu from 4 left and down. 30 seconds left will be indicated with a "C," 15 seconds left will be indicated with a closed "C," I will count down with my fingers for the last 10 seconds of the speech, with a fist at 7 or 5 minutes. I will show you what this looks like before you speak so you know what each signal looks like. With Impromptu prep, I will verbally announce how much prep is left: "1 minute left," "30 seconds left," "15 seconds." I will say "Time" when prep has ended. If I forget to give you time signals: 1. I fervently apologize; 2. This is probably a good thing since I was so invested in your speech or getting comments in; 3. You will NOT be responsible any time violations if you go overtime because it was my fault that you went overtime in the first place. #3 only applies if I literally forget to give you time signals; ex: I give you a time signal for 6 minutes left, but not 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1. If I forget to give you a signal for 4 minutes left, but get everything else, you're not off the hook then. I will also not stop you if you go beyond the grace period. Continue speaking until you have finished your speech.

For Original Advocacy and Original Oratory (OA/OO) - I will be primarily concerned with content. I will be looking for establishment of a clear problem (harms) and how that is plaguing us/society (inherency), and then I will be looking for a solution of some sort to address this problem (solvency). There must be some combination of these three in your speech. I will also be looking for evidence, analysis, and a strong synthesis between the two. Good speeches will have solid harms AND will explain how the solution solves their harms. Delivery should be natural, not canned or forced and facial expressions should not be over exaggerated.

For Expository Speaking/Informative Speaking (EXPOS/INF) - Again, primarily concerned with content. While Visual Aids (VAs) are important, they should serve to guide the speech, not distract me. That being said, I do enjoy interactive VAs that not only enhance the piece, but make me think about what you are saying. While puns and humor are both important, jokes should have a purpose in guiding your speech and enhancing it, and should not be included for the sole purpose of making anyone laugh. While I think that there doesn't necessarily need to be a message at the end of the speech, I should most definitely be informed of the topic that you are speaking to me about and I should've learned something new by the end of the 10 minute speech. Transitions from aspect to aspect in the speech should be clear and should not leave me confused about what you are talking about.

General Stuff for Platform Events:

1. Content > Delivery (Though I did Interp, so delivery is pretty important to me as well. Kinda like a 60-65% content, 35-40% delivery.)

What I have below is taken from Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm for Platform Events:

2. Projection and Enunciation are not the same as volume.

3. Repetitive vocal patterns, distracting hand gestures, robotic delivery, and unneeded micromovements will only hurt you.

4. Pacing, timing, and transitions are all important - take your time with these.

5. Natural Delivery > Forced/Exaggerated

6. Time Signals for OO, OA, and EXPOS - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I am most well versed in DI, OI, and DUO, but as a coach, I've worked with DI, OI, HI, POI, OPP, and DUO.

For Dramatic Interpretation, Dramatic Duo Interpretations, and Dramatic Original Prose and Poetry (DI, DUO, OPP) - Subtlety > Screamy, any day, any time. I'm not against screaming, but they should be during appropriate moments during the piece. Emotions should build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For Humorous Interpretation, Humorous Duo Interpretations, and Humorous Original Prose and Poetry (HI, DUO, OPP) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. What I mean by this is that you should be thinking throughout your piece. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For Programmed Oral Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality.

For Oratorical Interpretation (OI) - Please err on the side of natural emotion over forced facial expressions. I am not a big fan when speakers try to force emotion or simply convey no emotion when speaking. Script selection is obviously a big deal in this event. Choose a speech with a promising and important message and see if you can avoid overdone speeches.

General Stuff for Interpretation Events:

A lot of this and my Interpretation paradigm is very much similar to Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm. He and I agree on a lot of things, including what I will write below.

1. Subtlety > Screamy - I tend to enjoy the small nuances of emotion. Build the emotion throughout, don't go from "0 to 100 real quick." Don't force emotion.

2. "Acting is reacting." - Each movement and action should have a purpose. Swaying or distracting micro-movements are bad. When one character or partner says something or does something, there should be a reaction from another character or by the other partner. Watch what is happening and react accordingly.

3. Let the eyes speak. Eyes are underutilized in Interp - I feel like everyone is so focused on facial expression and eyebrows/body language, that they forget about the eyes. Intensity can be portrayed in absolute silence.

4. If I am not laughing during your speech, it's not because it's not funny. I am just super focused on you and watching every little part of your blocking and your facial expressions.

5. Please watch body position - misplaced feet, hands, or mistimed blocking is a big no-no.

6. No blocking > bad blocking - you don't need to be doing something ALL the time. Sometimes, standing still and doing nothing is better than always doing something.

7. Use pacing and timing to your advantage.

8. Quality of cut is fair game.

9. Message of the piece - I don't think that there necessarily needs to be a super strong message to the piece itself. I'd be totally fine if the piece was literally 7 short stories that were interwoven together and each story had it's own little thing going on. I'm more concerned about the performance/technical blocking itself. That being said, if I literally do not understand what is going on in the piece, we have a big problem. Exception to this is OI.

10. THINK!!!!!!!! And do not let the energy wane!

11. Time Signals for DI, HI, DUO, OPP, POI/POE/PRO, OI - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have only judged Congress a handful of times, so please take what I write with a grain of salt.

In regards to speeches, I do not value speakers who speak at the beginning of a session more than those who speak towards the end, or vice versa. Opening speeches and the first couple speeches (around 1-2 on each side) afterwards should set up the main arguments as of why the chamber should be voting in favor or against the piece of legislation. After the 2nd speech on each side, you should really be clashing with arguments, impacting out both evidence and analysis, and weighing arguments against each other. Rehashing arguments made by other Congressional Debaters or "throwing more evidence" as a response to arguments is unimpressive.

During cross, if you just toss around random questions that do not actually pertain to the debate, your ranks will suffer. Remember to attack ideas and engage with the speaker who just spoke - save the argumentation for the speech. If you get the other speaker to concede something and you are able to use that in your speech, ranks will go up.

Respond to the actual links or the claims themselves and convince me why your claim is stronger. I welcome direct responses and refutations to another Congressperson's arguments, though please make it clear whom you are responding to and what the argument is. For example: "Next, I would like to refute Rep. Liu's argument that this bill would disadvantage states in the Midwest."

I'm a big stickler for Parliamentary Procedure, which means that if you are a PO, mistakes will be costly. Further, if you are acting like a biased PO, favoring certain speakers or debaters over other, you will be dropped.

Also, please note that "motion" is a noun. "Move" is a verb. So it's not: "I motion to adjourn." It would be: "I move to adjourn." PO's, remember that you cannot "assume unanimous consent" - a member of the chamber must ask for unanimous consent.

~~~

Feel free to ask me any questions about the paradigm, both speech and/or debate before the round begins. Or feel free to email me questions about my paradigm at xavier.liu17@gmail.com.

If you are confused about the RFD/comments I have written for either speech and/or debate, please also feel free to contact me whenever you'd like to at the above email.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!! GO. FIGHT. WIN.

Yang Liu Los Altos High School 1 rounds

Shobhin Logani Hire 6 rounds

Adrian Lossada Hire

Last changed on Wed March 27, 2024 at 3:55 PM PDT

Hi, I did speech in high school but plz don't treat me like a lay judge. I do college Parli and Policy. Not that good at either but we're working on it.

Tech > Truth, I won't write much because I don't want you to over adapt to me

Debate is most definitely a game

I weirdly like more sheets in the round, I find those rounds the most fun

I'm pretty neutral on about every theory position so feel free to be condo, read a PIC etc. I think the only thing I probably lean towards believing is multi-fiat is probably bad and being dispo in Parli is probably not great. But you still need to win the arguments for me to buy them

I will listen to just about any argument (including tricks) :) as long as we're not being racist or something

Don't worry about me with speed, just check in with your opponents to make sure they're chill. If you're diabolically fast then I'll call slow when needed. This doesn't matter in policy obviously

Friv is completely fine with me. I think the only T shell I've ever found silly is disclosure in Parli or like when teams read interps that teams can't read Ks. Yes, they can read Ks but more importantly, there are so many better interps to read against Ks

I kinda love David Worth's paradigm (Rice's Parli coach) so I'm gonna steal a few things he puts in there: 1. I have to understand an argument to vote for it. So run whatever you want but if you read something because you think you'll win since the other team won't understand it, be careful because I might not understand it either. 2. Realize that everyone has sacrificed something to be in the round that you are in, so let's make sure we are being respectful in round to everyone. Cross is not a time for you to flex on the other team

I flow on paper so plz give me some pen time and time to switch sheets

Call the Point of Order because I am bad at protecting the flow

I would like to think that I am not biased towards Ks because I compete at a K biased school I'd say but there's a chance that I have some so make sure to extra explain why theory is an a priori but you probably should already being doing that soooo cool

I don't understand your K lit base btw. But I'll listen to anything. I'll be most familiar with Set Col (not Fanon tho, Tuck & Yang are the goats), Lacan, Marx, while I do not understand Deleuze I think they're epic and I like hearing their arguments in round

I'll disclose after round unless explicitly instructed not to

The RFD will sound pretty bad because idk how to word things immediately so wait and read the Tabroom RFD after the tourney to actually learn stuff

#FreeHolden

Christina Loughran Miramonte High School

Kefa Lu Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Melody Luo The Harker School 3 rounds

Peng Luo Saratoga HS 4 rounds

Vishwas Manral Leland High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 9:12 AM PDT

General

- Speak as fast as you want, but try not to spread. The words should be clear

- Focus on understanding of the topic and the depth at which one understands a topic

- I can time the speeches but prefer you please time yourselves

- Add me to the email chain: vishwas.manral@gmail.com

- Be respectful - don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

Flay/treat me more lay
Send me your cases

Arguments/ Debate etc.

I don't like progressive debate at all (No Tshells, K's, CPs, tricks, etc.) I will probably end up dropping you if you run it. If you do end up going for it -- please explain to me clearly why it should be a voting issue at the end of the debate.

Squirrelly arguments are ok but you need to actually explain your link VERY clearly or you can't access your impact.

I love when people signpost; it helps me follow along with what you are saying in your speech.

Please make sure that you can your provide evidence to your opponents. If you fail to do so, the argument is dropped.

I prefer off-time roadmaps but keep them brief.

Dropped args should not be brought back into the flow, but point out when your opponents' arguments are dropped. You know the rest of the rules, so please follow them.

As far as framework goes, I am fine with anything as long as you are following your framework. Debating against framework- if the opposing team provides a better framework that works and proves why the other team's framework is irrelevant or etc. then I will consider that. If you run SV you need to tell me why I should prefer that over any default util FW.

You run the show, so show me why you should win this debate. Impact weighing is greatly valued.

I won't flow cross (unless they contradict themselves), but if something big happens, tell me in your speech.

I am fine with disclosing cases as long as both teams are ok with it. If not, then please do not be forceful. (No disclo/para theory)

Speaks usually from 28+

Good luck, be kind, happy debating!

David Martinez Fullerton Union High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 12:21 AM PDT

Debated for Downtown Magnets High School 2019-2023

Currently debate for Cal State Fullerton

LAMDL 2022-23 National Qualifier

NAUDL Quarters

LAMDL 2022-23 City Champion

Add to email chain: Davidm57358@gmail.com

Coached by: Jared Burke, DSRB, Toya, Anthony Joseph, Travis, Yardley Rosas, Elvis Pineda, Chris Enriquez, Vontrez White

Tech > Truth

For the larger part of high school I strictly ran big stick affs and strict policy strategies basically the usual things you would see in a policy debate.

Read whatever you feel most comfortable with

Specifics:

Case:

Case debates are truly a treasure when done right. rehighlights/recutting evidence WILL get you extra speaks.

Really a hit or miss. Reasonability O/W. Wouldn't really go for these types of debates unless it's clear the aff is very untopical. I also just dont enjoy these type of debates. That being said, feel free to run T if that's your strategy.

CP:

Love a good CP. That being said I greatly dislike teams that will read 3 CP in the 1nc with just the plan text or a vague card. I'm all for a good clash debate and really reading CPs in that way just kills a majority of the clash the 2ac can have. I'll be more sympathetic to condo arguments in that case. Plank CPs are fine, explain the progression of the CP and you should be good. Have a good NB or internal NB I think this is where most debates are lost especially when teams just cannot explain what the NB is.

DA:
Pretty ok with these types of debates. Be creative with your DA's will definitely give great speaker points for a unique DA.

go for it. I can understand and flow it. I think a lot of K debates become washed from either the alt debate or the fw debate.

K affs: To be honest I find myself voting a lot more on T FW/USFG and I dont think its necessarily because K affs are bad or anything but because I think teams need to really push on the idea that debate changes subjectivities a lot of y'all are letting these policy teams push you around. Theres some good cards out there and I fundamentally do think debate changes subjectivities but it doesnt mean i'll buy it if you do minimal work on it. Also a link to the topic gives you a higher chance at winning in front of me.

Speaker Points begin at 28.5 I do not disclose speaker points.

additionally will give extra speaker points if you can add some humor to your speeches!

overall, justhave fun. Debate is a space that we all engage in to learn and enjoy. That being said be respectful of the other team and be mindful of the language that you use. Any inappropriate language or behavior will not be tolerated and will be reported instantly to Tabroom and Coaches.

Ruben Martinez St. Ignatius College Preparatory 6 rounds

Mason Mei Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Manvendra Mishra Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Galib Mohiuddin Leland High School 3 rounds

Joann Moon Hire 6 rounds

Kalpana Mulay Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Roberto Muñoz Hire None

HARINADH NAGULAPALLI Evergreen Valley 4 rounds

Namrata Nanda Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 2:29 AM PDT

Hi everyone,

My name is Namrata Nanda. I’m a lay judge and I’ve been judging both speech and debate for a year or so for DVHS. I’m familiar with the format of PF and its rules. I have also judged speech and Parliamentary Debate, and I have a daughter who does Public Forum. Here’s the basics of what I want to see during a round:

Speaks:

Please do not spread! I cannot stress this enough. I’m taking off speaks for anyone who spreads. Like I said, I’m a lay judge, so the clearer you are, the better ????

Ethics:

Just be respectful to one another. If someone is being racist or sexist, it’s an automatic win for the other team and I’ll will be forced to report.

How to win:

Tech>truth

As mentioned above, be respectful and talk clearly so I can understand. Cover both sides well. I tend to vote off weighing, so make sure it is explained well! If your opponents drop a point or a response, say that in your speech so I can make note of it.

Timing:

I’ll be timing your speeches, but you should also be timing yourselves. I allow for a 15-second grace period, and if you go over that I won’t hesitate to interrupt and cut you off. If your opponent goes over the 15 seconds, you can cut them off as well, I won’t take off speaks.

CX:

I don’t mind if you’re talking over each other, but don’t say anything inappropriate. I don’t flow cross or pay close attention to it, but do what you need to get your point across (I won’t judge based on cross).

Debate terminology:

Again, I’m a lay judge, so I’m not too familiar with debate terminology. If there’s anything you think I won’t understand, feel free to call it out and explain it to me.

FF2:

If we’re in the second final focus and your opponent brings up new evidence, just tell me right after the round and I’ll take it into consideration when I’m writing my RFD.

RFD:

I’m not going to give my RFD immediately after the round ends, I will need time to decide and give feedback.

Lastly, have fun guys! I’m looking forward to judging everyone. Good luck!

Fredrick Ni BC Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 2:04 AM PDT

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

Nate Odenkirk Oakwood School 2 rounds

Touraj Parang Gunn Sr High School 3 rounds

Amit Parekh Emerald High School 2 rounds

Ravi Pasumarthi Vista Del Lago High School 4 rounds

Sonya Patel Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Philip Perez Vista Del Lago High School 4 rounds

Monisha Perkash Gunn Sr High School

Kitiny Phumchun Honor Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 1:38 AM PDT

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ravi Pinnamaneni Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 9:20 PM PDT

Hello All,

Background

I work in the Technology Sector in the Bay Area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and though I am quite novice at judging, I have watched a lot of rounds and have a good understanding of the format and logistics.

As a heads-up, I plan to take notes during the debate, but it is better if you treat me as a "lay" judge.

I have a good amount of general knowledge on the topics provided for these events, but may not know the specifics of your topic.

Preferences

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying, so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments more clearly.

b) Be polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Also, please note that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will not carry personal biases into the round.

I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me.

If your arguments are too complicated to be understood by the average person, then I will probably be less likely to vote for you.

Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

I expect teams to time their speeches themselves. But, if you want me to time, I can do that as well.

If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know.

Good luck!

William Pirone College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 9:53 PM PDT

TOC:

Let’s move quickly, TOC rules say your prep starts during evidence exchange

Go like 85% of normal tech speed haven’t judged in a minute

* * * * *

I debated for three years on the national circuit for College Prep. I now privately coach.

Add me to the email chain: wpirone@stanford.edu .

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has become egregiously long over the years so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can argue anything you want in front of me. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with. I enjoy voting on creative, fun arguments I haven't heard before.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow directly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. That said, please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

I tend to be very facially expressive when judging—it can help you know which args to collapse on and which to kick. If I'm vibing with something you're saying, I'll nod along with it during your speech. Argument selection is critical to my ballot—identify the best possible collapse strategy, go for the right argument, and do solid comparison on it.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, just make a warrant why I should evaluate the round differently. I'm open to almost everything.

Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested, you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal links in summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm: I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This also applies to responses such as "they don't prove xyz" or "they don't explain who what when where why"—make actual arguments instead.

Well-warranted analytics are great, blippy analytics are a headache.

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better (larger, faster, more probable, etc). On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

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.

Theory:

I'll tolerate theory. I'm chill with any shell as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me. Friv is fine, just make it funny (dinosaur/shoe/no evidence theory is interesting, disclose rebuttal evidence is boring).

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

If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.

*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. The definition of what constitutes an "RVI" is irrelevant.

I will evaluate topical kritiks. I'm relatively comfortable with Baudrillard, biopolitics, cap, imperialism, and security—anything else is a stretch so please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read a Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks (especially if you indict the methodology of specific studies from their case).

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way) you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument. Similarly, rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Totally open to theory against these though – just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant, anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

These are fun, but never voting for unwarranted blips like ROTO or “eval after the 1ac.” Paradoxes, skep, etc are ok.

GOATs:

I aspire to judge similarly to Ilan Ben-Avi, Ishan Dubey, and Ryan Jiang.

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I always default to the first speaking team.

Speaks:

I award speaks based on fluency and in-round strategy. Humor also helps.

Most importantly, have fun! Let me know before/after the round if you have any questions or want extra feedback.

—WP

Payton Polanco Clovis North High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 22, 2024 at 7:49 AM PDT

Judging Preferences

DEBATE

Flow

I am a flow heavy judge, so organized debate is good debate for me. Clash in arguments is a priority for me, and I would prefer you go in order of the flow, or at least let me know where you are in it. I want to give you your best chances, so don't leave it up to me where to put your arguments.

I do not flow cross, but I will evaluate it if you bring it up in your speeches.

Tech v. Truth

I lean more toward tech. If you don't say it, it doesn't exist for me in round. That being said, if it is a blatant lie, it will not be accepted. If it is completely analytical, I will weigh it less than arguments supported by in-round evidence. If they take the time to give me evidence as to why I should believe it, I expect the same level of consideration when people tell me why I shouldn't.

Cross

Again, I do not flow cross. It is up to you to bring it up in your speeches.

I also appreciate assertiveness in cross (you don't have to let your opponents walk all over you), but it is possible to be assertive without being aggressive. Will I make my decision based on cross? No. But I will be sure to include it in my RFD, and I will also take when you say your opponent didn't answer with a grain of salt if you don't let your opponent give an answer at all.

K Debate:

I am very open to K debate. Explain your framework to me and do significant work linking your Kritik to the specific resolution. The better you are with this, the less likely I am to buy arguments talking about how "the same K's are rehashed no matter the resolution"

K v. Policy/Topical

K Teams: I need significant work done on framework. You know a policy-oriented team is going to have framework. Tell me why I should prefer yours.

Policy/Topical: If you give me framework, make sure you have answers to how the specific K interacts with the framework. I would pay extra attention to the role of the ballot. Interact with the K; don't completely rely on your framework to solve everything for you.

K v. K

I need to know how your K's intersect and interact with each other. I don't just want to hear "but mine is better". I want to hear how each part affects systemic issues addressed by the other side. I will have a hard time with teams that read independent K's, don't do the legwork on clash, and just end up making parallel arguments that I as a judge have to weigh alone.

Other

I always appreciate when debaters frame the round for me. Of course, I will evaluate my decision for the round independently, but I'm much more swayed when you tell me WHY you won. Which arguments are your strongest? Which ones can you admit that you may be behind on, but aren't going to lose you the round because [insert explanation]

HATE SPEECH WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN ROUND, ESPECIALLY IF DIRECTED TOWARD YOUR FELLOW DEBATERS. At best, you can expect a CONSIDERABLE loss in speaker points. At worse, I will be stopping the round and contacting your coach.

Experience

I did speech in high school, but debate in college. I was a policy debater for Fresno State for two years, then another year at Fresno City College. I was one of the coaches for Fresno City College's Forensics team, and I currently co-coach Clovis North's Forensics Team.

Message to debaters:

As long as my paradigm is, what I really want is for you to have a good time and enjoy what you're doing. I'm very specific on here to give you all the best chance and be very clear so you're not stressing out, wondering in round. As much as debate is an amazingly educational and useful activity for your future, it is also something that should be fun and community building.

SPEECH

I have the same standards for interp events as I do for original.

When you speak, I try to look at everything, from the structure of your content to the actual presentation. I am a firm believer that what you choose to include in your speech has as much sway as your actual presentation. This goes for interp events as much as original; while you don't have the same freedom, you are able to choose what you include and where it is cut, and that has a huge bearing on the message you get across.

In terms of content, I'm looking for something that has impact. Whether you are first, last, or in between, I want to remember your speech after the round has finished. I'm looking for a cohesive structure of course, and I'm looking to see if everything you include does something to forward the point or the message. Think of Chekhov's Gun: “If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there.”

As for presentation, I want your performance to make me feel as much as the content is asking me to. If you are doing an interp, it's not enough to tell me that someone has died; I want to see it in your movement. In my opinion, every movement should be intentional, whether it's interp, persuasive speaking, or anything in between.

Also, don't be afraid of silence! I'm looking for what you don't say as much as what you say out loud!

But overall, I really want you to have fun and to deliver a speech that you've worked hard on. You deserve to be proud of yourself for all the work you put in throughout the year. Let this be the moment it pays off.

I wish you all the best!

Meera Rajaram Eagle Independent

Frida Ramirez Flintridge Preparatory 6 rounds

Vikram Rao Leland High School 3 rounds

Machelle Rasmussen Vegas Debates 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 1:48 AM PDT

I competed in Policy (CX) for 3 years in high school. I am a Chinese/Arabic/Serbian linguist and have worked in military intelligence for 20 years. I am a current high school debate coach and I teach Policy, LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools debate.

Email for questions/file sharing: rasmum@nv.ccsd.net

Judging style

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

I prefer well-argued and supported points to spreading. Being able to say so many points that your opponent is not able to address each one in their rebuttal is not truly a skill and does not show me that you understand your position. Don't spread!

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Speaker Points

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive

I judge on a 5-point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. The speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity, or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. The speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. The speaker was compelling and used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, and very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Shuba Ravikumar Flower Mound High School 6 rounds

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:11 AM PDT

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).
What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Subrata Saharoy Lynbrook HS 1 rounds

Harishri Savdharia Fairmont Prep 4 rounds

Hitakshi Savdharia Fairmont Prep 4 rounds

Charles Schletzbaum Milpitas High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Gavin Serr The Nueva School 5 rounds

Miral Shah Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Ismail Shaik Archbishop Mitty 5 rounds

Amit Sharma The Quarry Lane School

Lu Shi The Golden State Academy 6 rounds

Adil Shivakumar Gunn Sr High School 3 rounds

Suzanna Sinapyan Burbank High School 1 rounds

Anoop Singh Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Manish Sir Del Norte Independent 6 rounds

Lavanya Siva Vista Del Lago High School 4 rounds

Matthew St-Germain The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 6:08 AM CDT

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it and hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to subsequently paraphrase. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

Lincoln Douglas:

Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

Jeremy Stenglein Westwood 6 rounds

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Lakshmi Subramanian Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Shreyas Swaminathan Foothill High School 2 rounds

Chienchi Kathryn Tang Leland High School 3 rounds

Jon Joey Telebrico Monta Vista High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 4:13 AM PDT

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA Update

Ask me any questions before round, especially if I'm judging you in a non-Parli format

If F1 is delayed, I would like F2 competitors to come into the room in-between speeches and watch the rest of the round. Please do not continue to prep beyond your allotted 20 minutes if F1 is running behind—STOP stealing prep while I'm writing my F1 ballot.

Calif. Coast Districts Update for CX, LD, PF:

Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
Do evidence/warrant comparisons
Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.
STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.
The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to your interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State Quals. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.
Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.
I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.
I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.
Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.
Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.
Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.
Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.
For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)
Any and all spec is fine.
Read and pass texts to your opponents.
Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.
I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.
I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.
I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!
I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.
Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.
When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.
I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.
The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.
Any speed is fine but word economy is important. Something I've been considering more lately.
Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!
Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.
I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.
Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.
Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

Rounds Judged: n = 170
Aff Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
Neg Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to find me in Parli Prep and ask me before the round!

Anjali Tewari Leland High School 3 rounds

Rong Tian Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Amit Tiwari Vista Del Lago High School 4 rounds

Elli Tolentino Hire

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 12:02 PM PDT

Add me to the chain! Gmail @ elligenetolentino

About Me

Hi, I go by Elli (pronounced Ellie, he/him). I competed for about three years at Mountain House High & graduated in 2020. While I primarily competed in speech, I have some rudimentary experience in PF and LD (rhetoric at best). Please consider me a curious lay judge! Nonetheless, I'm very excited to learn prog debate :)

I'm currently pursuing concept art in the game industry (@zero.elli on IG i need engagement tysm), and as such, please assume I am unaware of the squo/current state of affairs.
(edit for Cal) I judged Policy last month, and I am aware of some topic-specific jargon, but please don't inundate the round or me with terminology.

Most of what I know about debate is from my ~~Iron 3~~ Silver 1 30% HS Rate ex-coach, val student & friend, Arshita Sandhiparthi.
(+0.000001 speaks if you make a Valorant reference)

I want to preface that I have a learning disorder. As someone in the midst of comprehending what I couldn't before diagnosis & treatment, I'm able to flow, but I will have a tough time keeping up.

Speech (debaters ignore)

TL;DR: Good blocking, good piece synergy = W

I used to compete in Dramatic Interpretation and limited prep (NX). I was okay, but I'm familiar with what clean, well-rehearsed blocking looks like. I believe that what place you're given in the round should not be entirely determined by the cutting of your piece, as students may not have total control over how their script is cut. That being said, this may not totally apply by outrounds, and regardless you control the timings of your performance. Emergence is powerful, and powerful speeches emerge when you can read the room and know how to navigate those 10 minutes.

I haven't competed or judged a speech round in a while, so I may not be familiar with any change in rules or what is in vogue (i.e., specific styles of popping w/ interp or whatever). I'll go by the NSDA rules. If any external interruptions do stop your speech, it won't determine your placement in the round.

If asked, I will give time signals.

Debate

O/V (I love overviews, use them)

TL;DR of the TL;DR: I have terrible working memory because of ADHD. It's in your favor to do anything that helps me understand the topography of the debate.

If you're referencing/cross-applying cards, I recommend you reiterate the warrant and remind me what speech it came from.
Err on the side of caution when using jargon; I'll ask you to explain what it means if necessary, but gauge what you can from this paradigm (edit: I finally understand thumpers :O).
I lean truth because the prereqs to being tech are the capacity to flow well + being competent at impact calc.
Spreading is fine with me; Signposting & summarizing can make or break whether I can follow. Pause after reading a card, and slow down when saying the tagline/author name.
Feed me judge instruction!!! Tell me how to weigh, how to frame the round, and HOW TO VOTE!

Spreading/Flow

TL;DR: Give me some buffer time and pause when reading analytics/tags. Signpost! :)

I'm cool with spreading, but:

Please do proper line-by-line, and after your speech, send out a marked doc with cards in the order you read them.
Inevitably, I'll miss a thing or two. I'll yell "clear" if I need you to slow down. I won't dock speaks (unless you ignore my warning entirely), but I expect you to slow down and signpost.
A simple pause does wonders. Thoroughly explain your syllogisms, pace your speeches, and you will be rewarded!
Don't spread analytics as fast as you would a card. I’d also like you to send analytics over.
If you're up against an inexperienced/novice team, pub-stomping via speed or theory is not the move. Your speaks and potentially the round will reflect this.
I flow cross to read in between the lines. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a lay judge, and my schema for debate isn't up to par with your more experienced circuit K hack.

Meta-Debate

Truth/Tech

TL;DR: I will objectively retain more salient, intuitive arguments, but I'll try to override this.

I want to emphasize that clear link chains and impacts matter. Articulate, clarify, and make understanding your warrants easier so I can get a better read on where the debate's headed. That said, I attempt to be tech but end up erring truth in-round**.

This article best explicates my thought process on judge impartiality. "To all truth judges I ask you to consider this: Is my decision based on a specific articulation of a clearly marked argument made by a debater, or am I drawing information and inferences from my own knowledge?"

Theory / F/W

TL;DR: No, I'm not going to TL;DR theory, read below :)
L + ratio + perm do the stanky leg

I think I enjoy it? Here's what I can say.

If possible, weigh between links to fairness & education. I'm more convinced that fairness is an internal link & not an impact, but that doesn't necessarily delineate it as bad/less preferable than an impact (nuclear war can be an internal link to anything).
AFAIK, condo is bad because of double turns, but it's devious when done well & I enjoy it for its strategic value. As with all things, be chill & don't hard abuse if you plan on running it (i.e., I'll probably buy condo bad if you run over 3 CPs, but otherwise, it's fair game)
I like procedural arguments in general because they're easier to follow!

Defaults?

The essentials of a default: - Condition opponents by repeating core parts of an opening - Opening looks the same, but different plays are possible - Obscure your intentions through info denial - Gather information - Maximise utility efficiency - Take map control.
My personal favorites on Ascent:
A default w/ Killjoy turret covering bottom mid will force certain moves, i.e. on Ascent, = no cross into pizza & arches, & spawn jump peek (agent info)
Smoke on catwalk denies tiles peek, forces mid presence or util trade. You can play for these timings. I love minmaxxing any bottom mid-control.

ok seriously though

counter-interps unless persuaded to evaluate under reasonability. Define reasonability for me!
presumption flows neg (more critically, it flowing to less change)

I'm cool with Ks, but I require an explanation/a short thesis on what you're running if it's super niche.

my brain if you read Baudrillard (i am familiar with his lit base go crazy ahhh)

Please establish the solvency mechanism for your K. +1 if it's topical, but by all means, go wild if you're feeling it.
Somewhat high? threshold for K Affs. Don't let this stop you, though!

Etc.

TL;DR: Crystallize and tell me what is terminal. Make it easy for me to flow.

Conceding/dropping arguments makes it easier to follow on flow, which is 1000% to your advantage. Rehashing a card dropped/lost during clash does not. This kind of rhetoric makes following along harder and may implicitly influence my ballot, which you don't want.
I plead that you write my ballot by the 2AR/2NR & from what you've collapsed(and do collapse), give me a big-picture overview.
I will not keep time; I expect the debaters to do that. I'm usually chill on this, but I'll drop an auto-loss for any clear abuse.

**note: As to why I lean truth, I believe this to be an unintentional byproduct of my disability. The cognitive load of weighing can be intrinsically complex for me (I speak impact algebra, not impact calculus), so just know that how you weigh may not supersede how you clash or how intuitive your argument is.
yes here's my card brah, I'm linking a research article and cut it just for you:

"To save mental effort, individuals with ADHD might not base their decisions on a comparison of EVs but use easier decision-making heuristics instead. Using heuristics, parts of information are ignored to increase efficiency (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011)."

Minhhy Truong The Kinkaid School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 12:39 PM EDT

Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.

Flay <------------------*Me*------------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge

*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob

General

E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com

With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.

DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.

CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.

Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.

K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.

If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.

1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.

2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.

3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.

4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.

____________________

Other notes:

Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.

Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.

Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.

Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.

Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...

Open CX is okay with me.

Tech > Truth most of the time

No Tricks

ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.

PF Specific Notes

I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.

Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.

For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner arguments that are dropped on the flow unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.

Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.

If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.

All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.

Pallavi Ubale Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Zaid Umar Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:58 AM PDT

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Rose Velasquez Hire

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 8:35 PM EDT

Hey everyone! My name is Rose Velasquez and I am a freshman debater at St. Mary's College of California. I currently do Parliamentary debate. I did debate all throughout high school and also have experience in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions, and World Schools. I also competed in IE's and have experience in Impromptu, Original Oratory, and Extemporaneous(IE/NE).

I will disclose after the round unless the tournament has specifically requested against it. I will give feedback for both sides. Feel free to ask any questions about the round or debate in general.

Respect is huge and must be maintained throughout the round. Of course, passion is a good thing, but name-calling is never acceptable. If I feel that one side is being abusive then that will affect my decision. Please refrain from looking at or pointing to your opponents. I (the judge) am the deciding factor so feel free to look at me or into the crowd(I understand some people have issues with eye contact and that will never be something that affects my decision).

In regards to speed and spreading I am not against it as long as your words are clear and understandable. If your opponents ask you to slow down please do so. I do flow so please be aware of that. Organizing your case, letting the room know your order, and keeping your sheets organized is appreciated so that I know what you will be addressing in your speech.

I don't mind Kritiques. I think they are useful to the debate space. However, with that being said I need clear linkage and topicality in order to vote for a K. If it truly has nothing to do with the topic and the assumption the topic is making is not clear it will most likely not be what I am voting for. In regards to responding to K's, if educational quality and topicality are your only responses, and it is clear that the K is actually topical then you have inherently made no response to the K and I will most likely vote for it. If a perm is brought up again the K, there needs to be a clear reason as to why the perm CANNOT happen.

Please state a ROB or ROJ so that I have a base for my decision, otherwise, I will default to Net Benefits. Please state your clear impacts. HOW does one thing lead to the other and WHY is it good or bad? Carry your impacts all the way through the round. In your last speech please clearly go over the main voter issues of the debate and collapse. These are the most important issues and areas you have won in and will have a huge impact on my final decision.

I am fine with topicality as long as it is not excessively abusive and makes sense.

Otherwise, I don't have any specific preferences on strats. Just make sure you are having fun and getting better! :)

Zaid Vellani Mission San Jose High School 4 rounds

Vinay Vellore BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 4 rounds

Madhu Venugopal Leland High School 3 rounds

Raghavan Venugopal Eagle Independent 2 rounds

Kajal Vora Del Norte Independent 6 rounds

Mitu Walia Mission San Jose High School 4 rounds

Joey Wang Leland High School

Trinity White George Washington HS 6 rounds

Carol Wininger The Harker School 4 rounds

Alex Wu Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Zhong Xiong ModernBrain 2 rounds

Eman Yarlagadda Vista Del Lago High School 4 rounds

Krishna Yelisetti Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Haijiang Zhang Del Norte Independent 6 rounds

Michelle Zhang Northwood High School 2 rounds

Helen Zhong Lynbrook HS 1 rounds

Qing Zhou Gunn Sr High School

Rachel Zubrin Independence High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 8:32 PM EDT

Welcome to my angry rant!....I mean, my paradigm!

(don’t worry, I am nicer in my RFD).

I have 5 years experience in World Schools and Public Forum Debate. Flay for policy.

I hold debaters accountable for Public Forum’s original purpose- which is to communicate to the public*. I am not a lay judge, but if a layman couldn't at least understand you, you are defeating the purpose of public forum and you should be in policy instead.

tabula rasa, but don't overdo it. You don't need to define "the" for me :P.

I love kritiks when used sincerely, but not when they are used frivolously.

Substance over theory, forever and always. I despise theory (except topicality). If you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason and address a REAL issue, because it will not impress me as a default strategy. Theory was designed to keep debate fair...so don't be like rain on your wedding day (ironic...Alanis Morissette...no one?) and use it abusively.

There is nothing I hate more than a petty theory debate with no substance....but spreading is a close second. If a teacher assigned you a 2 page paper and you used 1pt font to get as much info in as possible while also hoping the teacher didn't catch your mistakes, you wouldn't get away with it. Spreading is no different. The assignment is to convey your message to the public as persuasively as you can in 4 minutes. I consider spreading to be like using 1pt font: cheating. Not to mention that spreading is SUPER elitist to ESL debaters.

Truth over tech, sorry not sorry. It’s not because I am lay, its because I am allergic to kool-aid and won’t drink it. I still hold you accountable to technical aspects of debate, but not if tech isn't supporting truth. I don't care if you memorize more jargon than your opponent, I care if you have better arguments. Impressive impacts with strong links win.

Framework should not be neglected!!!!

---------------Advice for my victims....I mean, competitors--------------------------------------------

I have a tendency to favor global impacts over domestic, and I am a sucker for strong logic based on economics. Please remember- the United States is NOT the world, and the values of the United States are NOT universal. If your opponents make assumptions, point them out to me.

Don't assume I am a liberal- if you want to argue that republicans are inherently bad, you need to prove it.

Don't collapse on a good argument for the sake of collapsing. It might take 5 seconds out of your summary speech to keep a contention in play that could save your whole round.

Don't focus on niche issues when your opponents' impact effects the whole world.

Real world impacts are more impressive to me than theoretical ones. Don't tell me something is going to lead to nuclear war unless you really can prove it. -_- Links or its fake.

If you are going to use climate change as your impact, you better be able to prove uniqueness.

I have a pet peeve for arguments that falsely equate correlation with causation. If your opponent calls you out on this correctly....-_-

Don't give me a false dilemma. Don't strawman. Don't be dumb. Don't be tricky. Just do your research.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS.

Login to Tabroom

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2024 — Berkeley, CA/US

Varsity Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges