Tabroom.com

The 1st Annual Fairmont Intramural Tournament

2023 — Anaheim, CA/US

PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Rohun Gupta Fairmont Prep

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 10:31 PM EDT

I am a flay judge, more so on the flow side. Currently a college freshman judging for Fairmont. I’ve done PF for 6 years and I’ve qualified to TOC three times and went 4-3 twice.

My microphone on my headphones aren't working so I will be speaking through the chat during the round.

Please send case and rebuttal cards through an email chain before the round for the sake of time.

My email is rohunx12@gmail.com

Speed is fine with me as long as you are clear and send a speech doc.

To win my ballot, you just need to win one contention or turn (aka offense) and then also explain to me why that matters more than your opponent's offense (aka weighing).

To win your offense, you must extend each step of the logical link chain and the impact. I don’t really care about card names as long as the warrant is extended unless the card name matters in the round. You only need to extend in summary and final focus (aka the back half).

However, if you do not extend a key link in the offense you go for, I won’t automatically drop your argument unless it is the 2nd final focus. Your opponents must point out that mistake and use it as a response (aka defense). That means that if a team only talks about their contention by name and doesn’t extend it properly, they can get away with that if the other team doesn’t point it out. I’m only a blank slate after all.

To win your offense, you must also respond to your opponent’s responses (aka frontline). I prefer if the responses are responded to immediately in the next speech, which means 2nd rebuttal should ideally frontline the offense they intend on going for in the back half. It’s not a must, but it will get you extra speaks and a competitive advantage in the round for the reason below:

Defense is sticky from 1st rebuttal to 1st final focus. In other words, the 1st summary does not need to extend defense from the 1st rebuttal if it is not responded to in the 2nd rebuttal. Otherwise, defense that you want on my ballot must be extended and also defended from your opponent’s responses to it (aka backlining)

No fancy rules for weighing, just make sure you do it. If both teams do it, make sure you explain why your weighing mechanism matters more than theirs. Debate is comparative at the end of the day. My whole job as a judge is to compare y’all’s sides with my own analysis, so why not do that for me and write my ballot?

Finally, if you want to run prog like theory and Ks, I’m completely open to it. I’ve ran theory before and I generally believe that disclosing is good and paraphrasing is bad.

HOWEVER if the round has multiple theory shells (excluding the counterinterp of course) OR if the round is a K round, then you’ll have to treat me like a lay and go slow. I have a minimal understanding of K’s and I have found that for me, the round becomes hard to follow if there are multiple theory shells presented on both sides so you just gotta dumb the round down for me.

If the debate is substance though then go as tech as you want. Use defense to kick out of offense, go for a double turn, do whatever.

Matthew Hyun Fairmont Prep

Roma Kapoor Fairmont Prep

Roy Kapoor Fairmont Prep

Last changed on Mon May 6, 2024 at 4:21 PM PDT

TLDR: tech over truth u do u

Disclosure: Use speech drop or email @roydebate2@gmail.com

Speaks ova:
Your starting speak for me is 27.5 lowest I'll give you is 25 and highest is 30

You can lose speaks if you abuse your opponent too much.

Prefs

PF: All arguments are fun more specific bellow; not exactly the best judge for trix and K's but I can handle it
Spreading: u do u
Trix: Line by line it please
K's: Cool ????
Theory/T: Love them favorite types of argument, cool with friv as well i dont think any theory is friv until disproven
FW: Nice and simple
Standing or sitting; I do not care if you sit or stand

Random stuff

Do not ask "can i have the first question" in cross if you're the 1ac or nc or its 25 speaks

Defense is not sticky

Extensions aren't the be all end all unless its a close debate, their purpose is to break clash not be a voter

30 speaks if ur not wearing formal clothing, can we like leave that in the past we are fr the only event that spams suits atp

Do not:

Too abusive: eg. if it's your opponent is a newer debater don't read 5 offs, spread, 3 t-shells and FW, just win by skill rather than being fugazi as hell

think im presuming 1st speaking team, I err neg unless given presumption args(heavily urge u to spend 3 seconds of ur speech reading one if its a close round u wouldn't believe how many good debates collpase down to that on 3 judge panels for the flay trust bruv)

this list will grow over time

Thats all, extra info below if u want

Here are some debaters that I like and agree with- refer to them if you want more info, i was taught debate by all of them to some extent and therefore share similar views. I consider these 3 quotes some of the best advice any debater can take.

Joseph Nahas

"If you want to dump responses on the flow, I respect that, but I HIGHLY SUGGEST that you don't spam under-warranted and blippy analytics. Conversely, I LOVE warranted, smart, and efficient analytics. Good analytics are underrated :)"

Martand Bhagavatula

"any argument introduced in rebuttal, for example, must be fully flushed out/warranted in the rebuttal speech. If something's under-warranted in rebuttal, and your opponents call you out for that, you can't go up in summary and say: "they say there's no warrant, but here's the warrant:" and explain it in detail for the first time. With that in mind, explanations should stay constant. They can't get more in-depth throughout the round, nor can they really be less in-depth, with the former essentially prompting the formulation of a new argument, and the latter hurting your odds of winning'"

Gabe Rusk

"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."

Kion Manesh Fairmont Prep

Ara Mehran Fairmont Prep

Gia Patel Fairmont Prep None

aumrita savdharia Fairmont Prep

Stavan Shah Fairmont Prep

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 1:52 AM PDT

I am a Junior at Fairmont ...debated PF under code Fairmont SS

I debated on the circuit since 2021. Qualled to TOC all three years, and would say I am ranked decently on the bid leaderboard and debate drills.

Add stavanshah21@gmail.com AND fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com to the email chain.

Strike Preferences: (These are just my preferences, but I will evaluate anything, but the lower the preference the worse I will be at evaluating

Theory - 1

Substance/LARP- 2

Kritik - 3

Friv Theory - 3

Non-T Kritik - 4

Performance - 4

Tricks - 4

High Theory - 5

TL/DR

Tech>>truth. Weigh in summary, give me good warranting. Defense is not sticky, so you better extend. I will not evaluate new offensive weighing in either FF. Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half, EVERY SPEECH. Weigh anything you want evaluated. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced. Go as fast as you want, I debate at 300+ wpm, but be clear and send a doc. Clarity>>>> Speed. Just because I was a fast debater doesn't mean I can flow speed well, and I refuse to look at a doc unless I'm explicitly told to look at a card after round, or if intervention is needed. (worst case). I can handle the most techy args yall want to throw at me, but if you are going fast there is a good chance I miss smth cuz I'm just not the greatest flower so err on the side of caution.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN, AND DO WHAT YOU MUST WITHOUT BEING PROBLEMATIC.

How I Judge:

If my paradigm is unclear, my favorite judges are Eli Glickman, Katheryne Dwyer, Bryce Piotrowski, Andy Stubbs, and Gabe Rusk;

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

If you do not do this, then I don't know where to flow what, and you will get an RFD that you don't like

Cross:

This is for you, not me. I will listen to it, but not evaluate it.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too, but blippy NLs from the first rebuttal don't all need to be answered here line by line, but should be grouped and gut-checked or somehow responded too, otherwise a bad blippy NL can be blown up, and if I have no ink on it, I will extend it on my flow.

Summary:

Summary needs to extend any defense or offense that you want evaluated. Defense is not sticky. For case you need to extend UQ, Link, IL, Warrants, and an Impact. The only new turns or defenses I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team. ANY OFFENSIVE WEIGHING NEEDS TO START HERE AT THE LATEST.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but it can't be offensive. No new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, there is no benefit from spreading in FF. For case you need to extend UQ, Link, IL, Warrants, and an Impact. Please properly extend and call out people for extending properly. I have won so many rounds just cus offense wasn't properly extended in FF and also lost rounds on the same thing. PLEASE don't be afraid to point out missing parts of an extension and explain why that means I can not vote for the other team.

———PART II: TECHNICAL STUFF———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume to a coin flip (aff heads/neg tails). Please read presumption warrants if you would want me to presume any other way.

Evidence:

PLEASE I URGE YOU TO CALL A EVIDENCE CHALLENGE IF THERE IS A RULES VIOLATION, BUT DO IT RIGHT I NEED PROOF, I look to NSDA rules unless a tourney specifies otherwise!!!

—Evidence §1—

I will not accept paraphrased evidence. I treat paraphrased cards as equal in link strength to analytics. If there are two pieces of competing evidence that will determine the round and both teams want me to look at it... and one piece is paraphrased, then I will not even do the comparison and default too nonparaphrase ev. Whether or not you paraphrase, YOU MUST have cut cards, if you don't I will cap your speaks at 26 and you should strike me( speaks cap does not apply for MSPF, NPF or JVPF).

—Evidence §2—

When evidence is called for, take less than 1 minutes to pull up the cards or it comes out of your prep. (Oh wait we should be sending docs hmmm.) Marking evidence isn't prep time, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, I will start running prep or I might just tank speaks. Also you can't just say mark the card, you gotta tell me at which word you are marking the card, if you are gonna just skip the card you gotta tell me the author name which you skipping. If I notice clipping like at all, and the other team does not catch it, your speaks will be the lowest possible, but I will still eval the round off the flow

—Evidence §3—

If you misconstrue evidence—you know who you are—and I find out, I will either drop you or give you the lowest possible speaks, depending on the severity of the misconstruction (I am more than willing to assign an L20 or below). If you catch your opponents misconstruing evidence, call it an independent voting issue (IVI) and I will treat this as a pre-fiat round-ending argument if the evidence is sufficiently misconstrued, but the IVI needs to be fleshed out, I am not voting someone down on a thoughtless 5 line blip.

Email Chains:

Whether or not the tournament is online I will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; sending a doc is a good way to get a speak boost.

Prep Time:

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

Speech Times:

These are negotiable on some very extenuating circumstances (if you know then you know)

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. I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 250 words per minute. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (300+ wpm) paraphrased cards there is no way you get above 27 speaks. 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.

Also, I hope yall understand that just cause I was a very fast debater it does not translate onto my judging capabilities. Like I genuinely am a slow flower, I needed a doc when I was a debater to flow, and when judging I refuse to look at a doc, meaning if I can't flow it, then I can't eval it. Tech does not mean speed. This isn't to say do not go fast, I will understand you, but more of be aware my flowing skills are not the best

Trigger Warnings:

IDC read TW bad or good, it is just another shell at the end of the day.

POGRESSIVE DEBATE———

This is probably my favorite part of the debate. I enjoy theory debate; I run theory frequently. 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.

Theory:

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

I like theory. I think the frivolous theory is funny if run with a nonmalicious intent. I'll evaluate anything, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks unless its your first time. 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, let me know after the round and I will help as much as I can. I

I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Spirit > Text. Stupid PF thing but ig I should clarify. If you read NO RVI's just in a standard fashion but you lose ur shell to the C/I it is OFFENSE for them aka its a Offensive Counter Interp OCI. They are proving their norm is better thus I should vote for them.

I will still vote for RVIs if you win them, but never have I seen a round where RVI's matter cus it ends up being a Shell vs CI Shell rd. Now if you want the NO RVI to preclude the other team from getting offense from the CI, it must be implicated explicitly otherwise I treat the CI as offensive as described above. If that is the case only then must the opposing team win RVI's to get offense from a CI. Please do not make me intervene on this paradigm issue, but rather win the flow on NO RVIS precluding or not precluding a CI from being offensive, so I don't have to decide the round off my beliefs. Like it can completely change the CI from being easy offense for the other team, into terminal defense on your shell, meaning I gotta vote on smth else.

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. Even if you read turns or a DA on a shell but you don't give a CI, you can win their model is bad, but I don't have another model to prefer meaning either I have to intervene or presume. You will not like it either.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you're speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. You don't need to extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in constructive; you must respond to your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this, and it better be a good one).

Topicality:

TBH I do not have much experience with running or hitting T, but I have run it a couple of times and went for it. I'd evaluate it like any other shell because that's just what it is. You need to do the proper weighing, implications, layering, etc.

Kritiks:

I have run Ks around 15 times, however, I am not the finest judge for these rounds, my partner was much better with this. That aside I can def evaluate the K, you just gotta explain the lit and SLOW DOWN if I'm unfamiliar. ROJ>= ROB >> all other offense, unless there is proper up layering done. If you are running a K, you better be winning offense under your ROB. K's under no circumstances should be conditional, with the short speech times we have in PF. However, you can argue why they can be dispositional. I'm more familiar with orientalism, security, cap, and queer K.

Note on K's, I used to and still do write a lot of prep-outs to K's, and my biggest takeaway so far is either get into the link or methods debate. PF times do not give us enough time to do the whole FW thing like LD and CX do. Second, if you'll wanna go 5 off on a K go ahead, but if that is your strat, you need to uplayer procedural fairness > ROB pretty well. Take my advice it is easier to beat a K on a methods debate, rather than a shell, but do what you do best.

On the perm, just saying perm do both (or any other perm you wanna do) as a response is not enough. A perm functions as a test of competitiveness and unless you challenge how the K is competitive directly, I presume it is. Going for the perm is cool but I gotta understand how the perm functions as offense or a reason to pickup the aff/neg.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but also funny, go for them if you wish, but who knows if I will understand them.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks (unless you have violated any previous clauses related to speaker points), if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s. A performance contradiction is not a TKO, and you better give me warranting why the performance contradiction matters and why it warrants DTD. Saying they "perfcon" and its a TKO is gonna annoy me and I def will not evaluate it when that is all I am given.

OTHER DEBATE EVENTS———

- Everything above applies except I will be lwk clueless of the structure especially if this is policy or ld. I would love a case debate, but do what you must, but expect the unexpected.

Ammaar Siddiqui Fairmont Prep

Ella Townsend Fairmont Prep

Willie Tsai Fairmont Prep

Last changed on Wed May 15, 2024 at 4:23 PM PDT

Hi, I'm Willie!

Add me to the email chain: williedebates@gmail.com --- Label the chains something so I can go back and find it. Include the tournament and round number.

Above all, be kind!

1 --- Substance stuff:

Tech > Truth. I'm willing to vote off of any argument that is well argued. I've run PolCap disads, elections, riders, climate change preserves agriculture needed to prevent extinction, Elon Musk will get us to mars to save humanity with single use plastic, stock cases with nuance, extinction first framing, and many of my contentions end in extinction. I say this not to dictate what arguments you should run, it goes to say that you should run whatever you feel comfortable with. This being said, it's key that such link chains be nuanced and warranted. If your evidence can't answer who initiates a nuclear strike, where the strike hits, what's different about today that makes such escalation unique, etc --- then you might want to reevaluate your impact. The art of a nuanced internal link that analyzes key current events has seem to gone away much to my dismay. Please read good internal links and I will be much happier and inclined to vote for you! Failure to do so means I'll have low thresholds for responses to the argument. Simply pointing out a lack of coherent detail of the impact scenario would likely make me a little more hesitant to vote for it if that is what the round comes down to.

I vote off the flow. Conceded arguments are counted as true, but only the conceded parts. Don't abuse it to make it seem like the whole argument was dropped. The smarter thing to do in front of me is take this piece of conceded nuance and demonstrate how it takes out other responses put on the argument, outweighs other arguments, and even takes out other arguments. This is the beauty of technical debating in my view.If you win weighing and the argument is won, you win the round! Don't drop your opponent's arguments. Dropped arguments are extremely difficult to recover from, and in the majority of cases, if a team implicates their argument, it's game over. On the flip side, if an opponent drops one of your arguments, exploit that error.

Weigh, please. Weigh EVERY point of clash. Broadly, I need to know whose impacts are more important. I love a good link-in but they aren't enough unless you weigh your link-in against the original link. I love good pre-reqs and they will boost your odds of winning the impact calculus. Also, weigh contrasting claims. If one team argues that a plan causes wages to go up and another team argues that a plan causes wages to go down. I need to know how to break the clash. Does one team have a warrant that specifically applies to the status quo? Does one team's wage impact go global as opposed to domestic? I also love it when teams use evidence to compare clash. Tell me a flaw with your opponent's evidence and tell me why that matters as well as why such evidence flaws win you the clash. It goes without saying, that you have to win your offense that outweighs to actually win. As a disclaimer, I have a very high threshold for "try or die" weighing. Lately, teams seem to use try-or-die weighing when they can't frontline link/impact defense. Zero risk is a thing. Of course, it's not impossible to win try-or-die. If you go down this route you will have to do a very good job explaining how the defense is only mitigatory, but even then, if the other team has offense, I will be much more inclined to vote for them. Your weighing would have to prove how a small risk of your offense comes first.

The back-half debate should have full extensions of UQ, link, and impact of the argument you are going for. I massively prefer you go for one argument instead of all of them. On your opponent's case: please extend the card name, a warrant for your response, and an implication of why said fact or analysis takes out an argument. I like comparative analysis and weighing.

A good rebuttal to me has numbered responses and goes line by line. The best rebuttals are when rebuttal speeches tether each of their cards to a 1AC/1NC card and do the comparative as it goes along. Makes it easier to dictate clash and keeps my flow a little more organized. Please implicate your turns and show why they outweigh the original link or are more probable then the original link.

The split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline. I'd advise collapsing at this point. Please do a clean kick out and explain how the defense takes out the offensive turn. I will vote off of turns that are not kicked out of properly. I'll be lenient on extensions of the internal link since it's something both sides agree to. I guess this extends to impacts as well, but it will be an uphill battle if you aren't weighing your turn which probably requires an explanation. No need to extend your argument in rebuttals (only frontlining if you're 2nd)

Speed: For perspective, my rebuttals average 240 words per minute. However, I've gone up to 300 words per minute as well as flowed debaters on my team that go up to that speed regularly. I do think however, I did my best technical debates going 240/230 wpm as opposed to these blazing speeds. Instead of reading those 4 extra cards at max speed, slow down and make smart analytics to implicate your cards (see above) Please slow down on tags, cites, and analytics when spreading. If you're going to spread, send a doc to everyone. The doc is not an excuse to be unclear. I will only utilize the doc for flowing purposes under the rare circumstance I got distracted during your speech (ie. someone called me, I spilled something, etc)

Send full speech docs with all your cards (properly cut) in order as it makes the evidence exchange much easier. It'll boost your speaks

2 --- Progressive stuff

Theory: I read disclosure once and paraphrase once last year. I won the disc shell, lost the para shell. This should tell you I'm pretty mediocre when it comes to the theory world. Trigger warning theory should almost never be read in front of me unless it is graphic. I'd rather not judge a theory round. I'm far from the perfect judge for a theory round with several shells and moving parts. If y'all go down the theory route for some reason, then slow down as there is no tag or card that makes it easy for me to decipher. From a strategic standpoint, I'd avoid. In order to be fair to y'all, I have some strong opinions on common norms in debate. While I remain as tabula rasa as possible, I suspect I have innate cognitive biases that create higher thresholds to win certain arguments. This rarely applies to substance debate since I could care less about a lot of the topics we debate about, but it's hard for me to unlearn why I choose to practice certain norms in the debate space. I believe disclosure is good for the debate space. Disclosure to me should be full tags, cites, and highlighted text. I think paraphrasing is a bit icky and have rarely seen a paraphrased 1AC/1NC without at least some unintentional mischaracterization. I personally do round reports and think their good for making productive debates but I feel a lot less strongly about it compared to disc and para. Judge defaults are: No RVIs, Competing Interps > Reasonability, Spirit > Text.

Kritiks: I've run a K once and hit a few K's but never won a single round. That should tell you I'm not the best judge for a K round. I will very likely make the wrong choice in a K round. You're more likely to win my ballot reading a friv theory shell (still very not ideal), normal theory shell (pretty not ideal), or substance (very ideal). If for some reason a K is still your best option, I did read the Buddhism Kritik once. Tell me what my ballot does now that I'm no longer in the hypothetical policymaking world and how voting for you is the best way to access said role of the ballot. Weighing will be very key.

Tricks: I don't have the willpower to ever judge tricks so no --- sorry.

3 --- Extra stuff

Time yourselves

I think presumption is a form of intervention. If there's no offense I will vote for whoever is winning the weighing debate. If that fails I look at who had better extensions, If it's still somehow even, I relent to begrudgingly presuming first.

Postrounding is fine but keep it chill

+0.1 speaks if you send the cards highlighted in green (not some gross variation of green it has to be the standard neon green)

Be kind.

I'm pretty facially expressive when judging. You'll see me nodding if I really like a argument -- do with that as you will.

People that shape the way I view debate: Rohun Gupta, Kion Manesh, Gabe Rusk

4 --- For LD and Policy

You poor souls - I do PF --- never debated a policy/LD round in my life so you're going to have to give a LOT of judge instruction. Assume I don't know a single norm unique to your event.

If you do anything progressive then I will probably make the wrong decision and if I can't figure it out will probably just vote for the team that didn't introduce prog.

I understand Plans, CPs, Disads (sucker for a Riders DA or Politics DA), Advantages. I understand the Delay CP, Consult CP, States CP. Advantage CP is dope. If you are slow when reading the plan/CP text and explain how the advantage or disad is solved/avoided by the plan/CP, I can probably understand it.

Topicality is fine but I'm not sure a team should be dropped for T violations. Obviously, you can win that topicality should warrant a drop the debater but I have a high-ish bar to vote for this. This obviously does not apply if the entire aff/neg is nontopical

Lance Young Fairmont Prep

Login to Tabroom

The 1st Annual Fairmont Intramural Tournament

2023 — Anaheim, CA/US

PF Paradigm List

Judges