If you read an interesting case/off - or have unique and good weighing you will get good speaks

General:

Email:Add taha.amir575@gmail.com

Defaults: I default to Drop the Argument, Competing Interps, and Yes RVIS - that can be changed with a word. (However please at least somewhat warrant your paradigm issues). I default to Util and the ROTB is “To vote for the better debater” unless otherwise said in round. Presumption/Permissibility flows neg. If I have to presume on value topics I will flip a coin and whoever wins the coinflip I vote for. If you think there's no offense in the round please make even one presumption warrant, I'll buy it.

General Thoughts on Debate:I think debate is a game and any argument and strategy is on the table as long as it is warranted. I will always be tech > truth. Although I prefer certain norms, nothing is absolute in the debate and if you want to change something about my paradigm - just warrant it.

Speed:Speak as fast as you want, but always send a doc with all your evidence prior to your speech. Slow down on analytics. I was a pretty fast debater so if I can usually follow along.

Substance:You need to extend your arguments in the summary and final focus, but my bar for a sufficient extension is pretty low. I like the debate to focus on clash, so good, intricate weighing is the best way to win my ballot. I loved reading extinction impacts, and my favorite debates was doing smart link weighing in extinction v. extinction debates. You should write your ballot for me, tell me exactly where to vote and why 'X' weighing on 'Y' argument means you specifically win the round. Some thoughts I have about regular substance debates:

• Turns aren't defense, if you want me to vote for one, explain why your link is better than theirs.

• Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, I'll vote for dedev, spark, etc.

• Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.

• I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.

Theory:Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however. The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp). Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech. Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other (However simple arguments are easier to understand and naturally require less explanation). Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"

K/K Aff:My thoughts on the K/K Aff. Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a Role of the ballot. K affs need an advocacy if they're not advocating for the resolution. If that advocacy isn’t topical, T is a very good strategy against K affs, and I think its true. That doesn’t mean I’m not perceptive to K affs, just that if you hit one, read T. Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB. Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative is.’

Tricks: They're really funny and I love running them. Go ahead and read them. However, Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them. Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow.

make the debate interesting, read impact turns, read framing, read extinction good IDGAF

tech > truth

3x TOC, did mid asf

speed is fire in the front-half, but always send docs; if you go too fast in the back-half i might miss something

do smart weighing and win case you win round

extensions just need to be there doesn't have to be long though

t>theory>tricks>k - order at which i know stuff (prefer substance)

i will probably give high speaks.

steal prep IDGAF

Current PFer @ Mira Loma in Sacramento, CA. Qualled to GTOC, NSDAs, CA States. tech > truth.

Mira Loma '25

I competed heavily on the national and local circuit since my sophomore year and accumulated 8 bids to the PF TOC.

Add me to the email chain: pranavprad7@gmail.com

Label the chain properly ex. "UKSO Quarters - Saratoga GJ (Aff) vs. Mira Loma PM (Neg)"

Tech>Truth. Truth doesn’t exist.

Read anything you want, debate is a game and games are fun when the players make the rules.

I prefer certain norms, however, nothing is EVER absolute in debate and if you want to change something about my paradigm - read a warrant why.

General:

I won’t flow directly off docs, however, send docs with cards (send them in the email text or as Word docs - NO google docs).

I can handle 250-300 wpm but err on the side of caution - send docs.

Slow down on tags and analytics, especially if they are not on the doc.

Bad evidence ethics constitutes a L25 - my threshold to stake the round on an evidence challenge is pretty high unless the ethics behind evidence is obviously terrible. However, read an IVI on the evidence and I'll be very inclined to vote on it.

Absent a warrant I presume to whoever lost the coin flip (if there is no flip - I presume 1st speaking team).

TKO's are a W30, if there is a path to the ballot it is an L25.

Open cross is fine.

Substance:

Defense is not sticky.

Turns are not defensive - you must do the comparative to make a turn a voter.

My threshold for extensions is lenient - you can extend warrants (I prefer this tbh).

I prefer link weighing to impact weighing.

Make sure to resolve the clash on link-ins and prereqs.

Theory:

I'll evaluate any shell with a warrant.

Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, full text is good, neutral on OS, IMO full text good > disclosure bad.

I believe certain norms but I won’t be biased when judging theory.

I’ll vote on friv theory, meta-theory, impact turns, interp flaws, etc.

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVI’s, DTD - can be changed with the right warrant

K:

Explain the literature if the K is not topical.

No paraphrased Ks.

A conceded ROTB is not a TKO; you must win the clash on your position.

Things I Like:

Metaweighing and carded weighing is great.

Creative and nuanced arguments, I spent a lot of time finding the most squirrelly arguments on topics I have debated.

Impact turns.

Fun rounds with moving components and lots of clash.

Speaks:

I award speaks based on strategy and fluency.

Try to keep the round interesting and do what you do well and you will get high speaks.

I will never go below a 27, unless you did something offensive.

If you still are unsure about my paradigm I view the round similar to: Holden Carrillo, Joseph Nahas, Sully Mrkva, and Ashish Goswami.

I'm a high school PF debater

You can read whatever you want.

Required in each of your speeches(any one of the below):

1. Jojos reference

2. Cobra Kai reference

3. 30 speaks theory

4. nuke war impact

5. dedev ( u have to win some extent of it and i'll evaluate )

6. spreading in the final focus

7. sing the Indian national anthem at the end of each of your speeches

8. PLEASE say Game over judge at least 35 times in each speech

9. Read thankyous to whoever you want to thank for being in the tournament (3 thankyous required)

if both teams don't do this, I evaluate a round normally. I'm a flow judge but don't go too fast. pls do weighing. I like framing and theory debate. Overall, just win ur links, impacts, and weigh.