Tabroom.com

4th Annual Freshman Deathmatch Tournament

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ishaan ahsan Hire

Vishaal Arunprasad Millard North Middle School

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 7:39 AM CDT

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email chain: Teams should always be setting up an email chain before the round, as it makes evidence exchange much faster and more efficient. I also want to be on said email chain- vishaalarunpr@gmail.com

General:

I will vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in the summary and final focus, and I will disclose exactly how I made my decision (as long as the tournament allows it).

Tech > Truth
The only time you need a trigger warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
Being blatantly rude to your opponents will get your speaks tanked. Regardless of how “good at debate” you may be, there's no excuse for this.
I’m fine with most speeds as long as it’s clear and you warrant your arguments. If you decide to start spreading/speaking extremely fast I’d prefer a speech doc of some sort to be sent out before you begin.

PF:

Give me an offtime roadmap before beginning your speech
I’d like to see weighing as soon as possible within the round. Comparative weighing is critical to preventing any sort of judge intervention
Defense isn’t sticky, anything you want in the round has to be in both summary and final focus
Organize your speech and signpost throughout
Speech-by-speech notes:

Rebuttal: Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round.

Summary/Final Focus:I understand that different teams have different strategies for approaching these speeches. I’m fine with anything as long as it works, but keep a few things in mind. 1. Defense isn’t sticky 2. Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about. 3. Final Focus should mirror the summary speech.

Cross: I don’t flow but I'll listen if sum spicy happens. If something important for my ballot happens bring it up in the next speech.

Prep: You must use prep to read evidence

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times and did okay I'd probably dislike judging it because from what i've seen no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery. I guess delivery matters more to me in Congress than it does in other events, but I still think it matters significantly less than the content and strategy of the speech.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill.

Bukunmi Babatunde Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:32 AM WAT

Introduction:

Hello, I'm Bukunmi Babatunde, a graduate from the University of Ilorin. As a debate judge, my mission is to foster fairness and promote learning. Here's a summary of my judging approach:

Conflicts: None

Email address: bukunmi5176@gmail.com

Expectations:

When you encounter me in a debate, I prioritize fairness and active engagement. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, engage with the debate's burdens, and respectfully address opposing arguments.

Open-mindedness:

Even if you don't agree with the framing or the argument, I encourage you to engage with the other team's case. This demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and helps foster a constructive dialogue.

Clashes and Focus:

To have clashes in the debate, it's crucial to pinpoint and compare the warrants behind arguments. Examples, precedents, and empirics don't clash unless the warrants are addressed. Summaries should focus on key points, warrants, and reasons for winning, without reviving untouched arguments.

Equity and Timekeeping:

Following equity rules is essential for a fair debate environment. Please keep track of time, as it helps maintain a well-organized and efficient debate.

Special Considerations:

In virtual debate tournaments, if feasible, keeping your camera on is encouraged. Technical issues with wifi or connection are understandable. Additionally, please ensure your speeches are clear and intelligible, delivering at a medium pace for effective communication.

Other Remarks:

As a judge, I prioritize neutrality and impartiality. I appreciate well-structured arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Clear articulation, persuasive language, and a logical flow in speeches are valued. Respectful conduct, adaptability, and effective rebuttals are important.

Evaluation and Feedback:

At the end of the debate, I evaluate each debater's overall performance based on the strength of their arguments, critical analysis, presentation skills, and engagement with the opponent's case. Constructive feedback will be provided to facilitate growth and improvement.

Conclusion:

My goal as a debate judge is to create a fair and intellectually stimulating environment. I evaluate arguments impartially, emphasizing logic, evidence, and adaptability. Through valuable feedback, I aim to contribute to the growth and development of all debaters involved.

Jack Beery Hire

Last changed on Mon March 11, 2024 at 5:24 PM CDT

Hi, I am a senior from Plano that mainly competes in Congress, Extemp, Duo, and PF, though I have knowledge in other events.

Congress

I like to see a combination of both speaking ability and content/argument, but more argumentation and refutation is preferred. If you are going over the same points that someone else has and are not refuting other representative's points by the 4th speech, you are not adding anything to the argument, and that will be reflected in rankings.

State your points clearly and confidently, while backing them up with concise evidence from reputable sources. (Ex: NYT, Reuters, AP, etc.)

You should be done with all of your points and evidence by 2:45 and use the remaining time to conclude, try not to cram information into the last ten seconds of your speech.

I enjoy clash during speeches, if there is none, and you are not speaker 1-4, rankings will reflect.

Surface argumentation is fine, but I really want to see deep analysis of the legislation, hole poking and loopholes around the legislation are cool, but make sure they link back to the stock impacts listed in the round or if not then make sure you weigh so I know how to evaluate them compared to what everyone else is saying. Also make sure you present a net harm other than that to solidify your position if you run one.

If you argue neg and don't present a net harm, that is an instant drop because of the fact you do not have a plausible argument against the legislation. Please give me a reason to fail the bill that extends past the fact that it is not comprehensive.

I love amendments if a bill is bad or has little clash, introducing amendments on legislation can not only make it better for debate, but can add cycles if needed to make sure splits are good and more speeches can be gotten in. Typically in rounds I see people shy away from speaking on amendments because they are unexpected, but that is a whole part of congress-adapting to the round-and as such I will rank highly those competitors who may not expect the amendment to come about but speak on it anyway extemporaneously. Even if you have slightly worse fluency than normal, your adaptation and argumentation will be preferred in this scenario as such.

MAKE SURE EVIDENCE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR SPEECH/ARGUMENT!!! Your argument should have logic as its base, and then use SOME evidence to balance it out and provide quantification and other data to support your claims/strengthen impacts.

At the end of the day, congress is an event in which you need to yes be prepared, but also be prepared to not be prepared. Adaptation and flexibility in round are what make some of the best congress competitors so great, and if you can do that and be active in the round, your ranking will absolutely reflect that.

Individual Events

Extemp:

Try to hit at least 6:30, have little to no fluency breaks, and have solid points.

Undertime = wasted time, develop your points even more if you feel yourself falling short, I probably won't notice.

Fluency is key for all speaking events, if you have a couple stumbles you will be fine but don't have any large noticeable breaks in your speech.

Interp/OO:

Pull me out of my seat and into the story, the ultimate goal is to make me forget I am judging you. I don't have a lot of experience in these events, but just do a good job and your rank will reflect your effort.

Public Forum / Debate

Please include me in the email chain or speechdrop (ask if I want to be included in round) - email -> Jackbeery11@gmail.com

I will call for cards at the end of the round regardless of if you ask me to, but I will be more inclined to read ones that you point out to me.

I am pretty tabula rasa, but I will eval arguments on both sides on card depth and link strength.

I will eval kritiks if warranted and impacted correctly.

I will eval Theory shells if warranted and impacted correctly.

Do not say that the other team violates something and then just drop that for the rest of the round and expect me to vote on it.

Friv theory shells are the bane of my existence, no I am not going to drop the other team because they are using macs.

I drop arguments that do not have a link and warrant.

Impact weighing is necessary for me to vote for a side, if you do not impact calc when both arguments are linked and warranted, do not expect me to vote on your side.

Spreading is fine if you share speech docs for all your speeches.

I am a fan of disclosure; you should probably share your case with your opponent 30mins before round. If you run disclosure theory, you need link warrant and impact. I expect counterinterp or address to the shell in case of 2nd speaker if run in 1st case. If you don't other team is warranted to run dropped theory.

For me personally, I want voters in sum after a little line by line, IE: explain why you win the line, then present the voter.

Weighing is absolutely necessary at least by the end of summary, weighing in rebuttal is a great tool if you have time though because it sets up voters and how I should evaluate each impact from case pretty early on, which lets me have a quicker ballot and RFD, as well as really eval every claim presented.

Truth>Tech most of the time, I want to believe what you are saying but if something is blatantly unbelievable from the perspective of a normal person, I won't buy it. If it is somewhat believable I will buy anything, at that point tech is fine, crazy links are acceptable if I buy the main arg off the impact.

Talk to me directly and tell me what to do. It is less impactful to explain the problems with their case from an objective perspective compared to telling me what to do about it.

SIGNPOST PLEASE

WEIGH PLEASE

I will vote on card indites if the opposing team's major voter relies on one or two cards that you can indite to a great extent (IE: it is super corrupt / old / ill-informed / etc.)

Speaker points reflect volume, fluency, and tone, as well as respect to your opponents in cross.

Unlike some judges, I do pay attention to cross, so dont be dumb in cross.

If you want me to vote on something tell me to vote on it.

I will check flow if you tell me to in speech or cross.

DO NOT DOMINATE CROSS -> LET THE OTHER TEAM SPEAK - > DO NOT ASK TOO MANY FOLLOW UPS

also make sure both you and your partner are asking and responding to questions in grand cross.

be civil, its called Public Forum for a reason

Overall just do good lol, im gonna call for your evidence any which way so make sure you arent using random surveys and stuff. Evidence should not be the entire debate but a guide to it, but even so i'm going to make sure the evidence you cite is actually saying what you are saying, as well as analyzing what the other team tells me about your evidence.

Extras

i like jokes in your speeches, humor goes a long way, just make sure it is indeed funny, and not a dumb joke.

Great AGDs are the bookends of speeches, if you have one you will be memorable and as such have greater round presence.

Ken Bhardwaj Hire

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 5:28 AM PDT

he/him

I am affiliated with Coral Academy ('24) in Varsity PF, USX, and Duo.

Email chain: kenbhardwaj2@gmail.com

TLDR: As long as you're not being racist, sexist, homophobic, Tech > Truth. If you do any of the ists/ics, I will drop you immediately with the lowest amount of speaker points that Tabroom allows me to. I like weighing, I'll evaluate prog and I enjoy a good framing debate. 50/50 chance I adapt on a lay panel. Just depends on my mood. Basically do whatever you want.

Pref Sheet:

1 — Tech Substance

2 — Theory

3 — Stock K's

4 — T, Identity K's

5 — Tricks

Content Warnings:

Please provide content warnings if you are about to discuss sensitive topics in the form of an anonymous opt-out form. If you don't do this and read distressing content I will drop your speaks to the lowest amount that Tabroom allows me to.

Prep Time:

Track your own time, I'm too lazy. I trust you won't lie to me. Flex prep is fine.

Evidence:

Make the evidence exchange quick. If there's an email chain for cards make sure to include me on it. I may take a peek at your cards, but I won't do anything about it unless the other team calls it out. If you get caught paraphrasing in an extreme manner, I'll dock speaks accordingly. Engaging with evidence is important! I encourage all debaters to ask for evidence that they think is fishy, and not to take a warrant at face value because there was a last name and publication attached to it.

Speeches:

Please signpost so I know what to write down on my flow, and make sure to speak at a comprehensible speed. If I think you're going too fast I'll let you know. You can bypass this by sending me a speech doc beforehand. I stop flowing 7 seconds over time. This does mean that you can technically have an extra 7 seconds to speak, but use it sparingly; I'll probably dock your speaks a bit.

I'm fine with off-time roadmaps, if you don't give one just make it clear what you're responding to and how.

1st Rebuttal:

Make sure to be clear when you're going from one argument to the next ("Next, on their internal link... Then go to their C2..." etc.)

Anything flies in first rebuttal, make sure you signpost to I know where to flow.

2nd Rebuttal:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've lost the round and the other team can call a TKO after 1st summary if they play their cards right. Generated offense in 2nd rebuttal has to be in the form of turns and not just new disads. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it should've been in constructive.

Summary:

No new evidence. (Unless it's to frontline your case in first summary)

Defense isn't sticky. Please extend defense in every speech; you can't forget to extend a piece of defense in summary and do a ritual in final focus to summon it.

Extensions don't have to be perfect. As long as you extend uniqueness, link chain, and impact, you're good. If I don't hear an extension it's wraps. You should also collapse in summary.

Weighing is very important. I like seeing direct comparisons between impact scenarios and links. This means that the weighing has to be comparative. Weighing is not "we cause a nuclear war" and nothing else. I want to hear "We outweigh on timeframe because our impact triggers instantly while theirs takes x years" – that's a direct comparison. If teams present different weighing mechanisms, please meta-weigh. If neither side meta-weighs, I default to timeframe + magnitude.

Final Focus:

Everything in FF should've been in summary.

This includes weighing! If I hear weighing in final that wasn't in summary I won't evaluate it.

I just want a solid explanation as to why you won the round. You can do it line by line, or go by biggest voting issues. Just make sure you're extending what was said in summary and crystallizing everything.

Framing:

I like a good framing debate. I won't accept "Other team has to respond in their constructive" or "Other teams can't read link-ins to the framing" as underviews or general responses. You're just avoiding clash, grow up.

Theory:

I'll evaluate disclosure, trigger warning, and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions though. If there's no offense from either side I err to those positions. Don't run theory on people who are obviously novices. If you're on varsity anything is fair game. I don't care if you don't know how to respond to theory, "theory is dumb" and "we don't know how to respond" are not responses at all. I'll drop you like Georgia dropped FSU.

K's:

I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. I will vote for things I'm ideologically opposed to (like cap good) if the warranting is sufficient. Just win the flow. Don't run Afro-pess if you're not Black, don't run Fem-Rage if you're not female-identifying. The only thing doing that will earn is a massive side-eye.

Don't run spark.

Speaks:

I generally give high speaks (28 - 29.5 range), but it's not too hard to get a 30 from me. Just have a good strategy (like going for turns, innovative weighing) and you'll be guaranteed high speaks. Each Taylor Swift reference gets a +1.

Post-round:

I'll disclose my decision upon request (if tournament rules allow for it) and give some level of feedback. I'll try to make my RFDs detailed, but I've heard that tournaments have quick turnaround times in terms of judge decisions, so this might not be the case. If you have further questions about why I voted a certain way, you can email me and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. If you have any questions not covered by this paradigm, feel free to hit up the email at the top or ask me before the round starts.

Good luck, have fun, and do your best!

Aben Bhattachan Hire

Ryan Chew Lynbrook HS None

Ben Coleman Hire

Last changed on Mon January 29, 2024 at 10:27 PM CDT

General:

L C Anderson '23, Emory '27

I competed in PF for 3 years on the national circuit

add me to the email chain: benjamincoleman05@gmail.com

tech > truth

do whatever u want as long as you’re not being a horrible person idc

go as fast as u want if you're clear enough but go MUCH slower if you're still paraphrasing for some reason

i’ll always disclose - postrounding is fine j be chill and not excessive.

SEND DOCS and if u cut out a lot of stuff send a marked doc after your speech. (a google doc does not count)

absent warrants otherwise, i presume first speaking team in pf

speaks will be good. i want u to break

Prefs Guide:

1: substance, esp if it’s fun / interesting / unique

1: T / non friv theory

2: most K (topic specific)

3: the same debate 6 rounds in a row

4: friv / tricks

5: performance

5: non-t aff

Specifics:

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky

i won't evaluate new in the 2 and will attempt to protect first final if necessary

weighing is important but usually optional and i generally don't care as much as some other pf judges, u need to win the link to win the weighing

link weighing > impact weighing > no weighing

i don't care too much about extensions especially for conceded arguments but u obv still have to do it

impact turns are v fun but u should be extending your opponents link if going for them, if u don’t link i will be very sad :(

super blippy frontlining is impossible to flow especially if you're spreading so try to actually explain things. i have won rounds solely by doing this tho so obv it has its place, do it if u want just make sure i can flow it. also if u say things like "no warrant" i'm holding u to your response, u can't go up and explain why their warrant is false later

i don't flow cx, anything important should be brought up in speech but i do think cx is binding

if both teams agree i'm down to skip gcx for 1 min of prep (doesn't apply to novice pf or split panels)

Evidence + Ethics:

I don’t care about what your evidence says. I do care that both teams are able to engage with it.

if you insist on paraphrasing, at least be honest about it. own it. just fully paraphrase your case. be ready to debate theory though.

a case with 59 bracketed phrases including things like [for third-party moderation] and [unlawful activity] and “to p[reserve] profits” (yes i’ve actually seen this before) is paraphrased. a rhetoric doc with no cards anywhere to be found is paraphrased. i view those things as worse than paraphrasing because you’re being dishonest about it. please don’t lie.

taglines are not one word transitions like “currently” and “thus”, i can’t flow that. these kind of nitpicky things don’t matter as much when you’re going slower but if you’re spreading i need to be able to flow your arguments.

“rhetoric docs” are stupid and invite clipping bc your cuts usually don’t match the rhetoric. if u read off one of these i’m now requiring that u send both the doc you read from and the carded case to avoid things like this.

do not send me hyperlinks please i can’t look through that and neither can your opponents.

sorry for the rant. i’ve only ever given one team 25s and it was for doing everything i listed above in one round. if you insist on doing any of this PLEASE strike me.

Progressive Arguments:

my general rule of thumb is: if you're competing in varsity at a real circuit tournament, you should be able to handle progressive debate. anything else and you'll prob lose anyways bc you should get better at subs first

theory: default CI, no RVIs, spirit > text, DTD - read whatever shells you want, i'm very comfy evaluating

i won't inject my personal preferences in debate into theory rounds at all - while i do believe disclosure and cut cards are good, i'll vote for anything u can think of including args like theory bad

i really don’t like hearing debates about how small your school is especially if you have like 3 private coaches

IVIs are really stupid ESPECIALLY ev ethics IVIs, winning that is gonna be a massive uphill battle with me. shell format is nearly always better just bc most IVIs are super shifty and do not have explicit paradigm issues until the backhalf making them annoying to evaluate.

OCIs are good and circumvent the RVI debate

read theory immediately after the violation and answer your opponent's shell in the speech directly after it was read

u usually need a brightline for reasonability otherwise it can get tricky to evaluate but those args def have their place

I do not require trigger warnings. i will obv vote on a shell that says they’re good or bad but i do not think they improve debate in any way and are just used to exclude certain types of arguments. also it’s the real world triggering stuff happens j don’t be excessively graphic

K: fine just don't expect me to know your lit.

debate on the LBL, don't read 2 minute OVs and expect me to apply them everywhere on the flow.

don't spam jargon you don't understand because i likely won't either. if i can't explain smth back to you i won't vote on it.

this should be pretty obvious but don't paraphrase your k, u should also def be open sourcing these after they’re read bc they can get super unpredictable and shifty in pf

don’t spread random theory blocks off policy backfiles (u know who u are). idc if neg fiat is bad if they don’t fiat anything

i really like topic-specific k's like cap or sec with big stick impacts but anything is fine as long as u warrant it out. after judging enough shallow pf k rounds i’d like to say i’m a pretty good judge for them so do with that what u will.

Performance + Non-T Affs

prob don’t read these with me. most of u don’t know how to debate these in pf and will lose to t-fw bc you’re used to aff hacks and i am not one of them.

i also really don’t like to hear these bc a lot of pf teams kinda ignore the flow and get upset easily during these rounds when teams actually debate their arguments instead of conceding making them super painful to judge.

if u read a callout or smth at the beginning i will pretend to ignore it unless u try to garner offense off of it in which case i prob won't give it to u and you'll get 25 speaks. this is one of the few things i’m not completely tab on and i feel no shame about it.

if you want to read a k aff and think u can win, go ahead you can still obv pick up my ballot. if i enjoy the round i will be especially impressed.

to everybody: just have fun. i get it stressful rounds happen just try not to take it too seriously. after judging recently i realized i actually care a lot about how u guys do so i always put time into my decisions and love when teams ask me more questions after round. if you want any advice feel free to contact me whenever and i’ll be happy to help :)

Garrett Crouch Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:09 AM CDT

- TL:DR
- Long version
- General stuff
- Evidence
- Weighing
- Defense
- Prog
  Theory
- Ks
- K affs
- Tricks
- Random stuff

Emilio Garza Hire

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 5:05 AM CDT

hi i’m emilio clear springs 25’

add 2 chain pls emiliogarza525@gmail.com

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

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

Quick Prefs

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

Larp - 1

TFW - 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obiora Goodluck Hire

Ashish Goswami Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 2:07 PM EDT

I'm currently the G in Saratoga GJ and I've been doing PF for the past 6 years, but I only started debating on the national circuit 3 years ago. I've been to TOC and I love rounds that are highly technical and fast with good clash and in depth analysis.

For evidence exchange: add ashish.keebab@gmail.com to the chain. If you plan on reading any new evidence in a speech I expect it to be sent in a doc before the speech on the email chain.

Debate is a game and you should play to win, but remember it's just a game.

TL;DR

tech>truth. Run whatever you want, if you're racist, sexist (any type of -ist) I won't hesitate to drop you with the lowest speaks possible. I'll look to the weighing first when voting. I need warrants for everything, and the better the warrant, the better the argument. I have a pretty high threshold for extensions i.e. I need uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact extensions in the backhalf. No, I don't care about author names, but I do care about what your author says.

If anything in my paradigm is confusing: feel free to ask me before round, email me, or reach out to me on Facebook messenger. If you are still confused after reading this paradigm, I view the round pretty similarly to: Leonardo Jia, Aarush Kaboo, Ananth Menon, & Sully Mrkva.

Pls pls look at this it'll be the easiest round of ur life if you can follow the steps below(yes, this is straight from Ananth's paradigm)

How I evaluate:

-I look to who's winning the weighing debate

-If team x is winning the weighing I look to their case first

-if team x winning their case, the round is over

-if team x is losing case, I look at team y case

-if team y is winning case the round is over

-if team y is also losing case I presume neg

Speeches:

Signpost to let me know where you on the flow, otherwise you risk me not being able to understand your speech. Speed is totally fine as long as it's coherent, but remember I'm flowing off your speech, not the doc. I'll only look at evidence if you explicitly tell me to or if it seems that the entirety of the round is staked on a single card.

Cross:

Don't be rude please. I'm totally fine with flex prep and open cross, but tbh I don't really listen to cross. My favorite crosses are the ones which lighten up the mood and I'll def give you a speaks boost if that's the case. If both teams are ok with this, I'm willing to skip grand cross for a minute of prep time for both teams.

Rebuttal:

I like rebuttals that generate offense, but that said, every turn you read needs to be weighed (even better if the turn has uq too) otherwise I am more likely to treat the turn as terminal defense than offense. I think weighing yourself out of turns is a pretty neat strategy too. Second Rebuttal should frontline all offense and weighing - otherwise it’s conceded. Offense YOU are going for in the back half must also be frontlined. I have no personal preference as to whether you should collapse or go for all of case in rebuttal, but whatever you do make sure you do it well.

Summary + Final Focus:

Your frontlines need to actually interact with the response, you can't just hand wave and tell me that their response isn't true, tell me why. Everything in final needs to be in summary.

Weighing:

I absolutely love good weighing. To read good weighing, make sure it's comparative(so you need to read actual warrants as to why I should prefer your mechanism). If you read a link-in I expect it to be weighed against their link too. If there are competing mechanisms in the round PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE metaweigh otherwise I am forced to intervene and here's how I will intervene if no one does any metaweighing: Magnitude>Probability>Timeframe>Any Other Mechanism. I'm not sure I even comprehend how strength of link functions, but if there is a conceded piece of offense I do think strength of link weighing is fair game (strength of link metaweighing would be even cooler).

Theory:

I typically never read theory, but I do know how to evaluate, so if that's your strat feel free to go for it. I default to no RVIs and competing interps, and I generally prefer that your shell isn't frivolous. The more frivolous the shell, the lower my threshold for responses and the more sympathetic I'll be to reasonability claims.

Kritiks:

I honestly would not trust myself to evaluate these debates especially if it's a performance kritik, so if you do read one please dumb it down for me. I'll do my best to evaluate, and if you explain it well enough we should be fine.

Alex Gulakov Hire

Yakub Islamov Hire

Ben Jacobs Myers Park High School

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 11:19 AM EDT

Hi everyone! I'm Ben. I'm currently a student at Vanderbilt studying economics and history. I debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit. I now do collegiate BP and coach PF on the side for Myers Park and Canyon Crest Academy. You can call me Ben, not judge.

Add me to the chain- bgkkjacobs@gmail.com .

Send all cases on an email chain with a label (ie. TOC R1F1 Myers Park BJ v Cary LJ). Either call for specific cards or ask for speech docs, calling for all ev on a contention is just a waste of time. Send speech docs for all prog rounds.

I don't care what you wear. Speak how you want. Embrace the human element of speaking and don't turn into a robot in speech.

My paradigm is disgustingly long, so, if you are just doing a trad round and need my basic round preferences then read the stuff with a ❤️ by the title.

Debate is a game- play to win and have some fun.

WEIGHING❤️-

Weigh early and intentionally. Just saying I outweigh on scope so you should vote for me is barely anything. Name dropping STIMP is boring and usually promotes non comparative weighing. Think harder and deeper in your weighing if you can. Obviously these things are the building blocks of weighing and will be involved but don't expect saying "ours happens first so we outweigh on timeframe" to convince me to vote for you.

I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args- if you are telling me a nuclear winter is going to happen you need to give me a step by step warrant not just some random conspiracy theorist on the internet saying we are all going to go boom.
Good Analytics> mid cards any day

SPEED ❤️-

I will not flow spreading nor will I flow off a doc (I like it when you send a doc but I won’t flow exclusively from it). I don't mind you talking fast and can flow faster than your average judge, but I don't enjoy flowing the absurd. The only time you should be using speed is for depth, not spamming arguments. The faster you go, the worse my flow gets and the worse my decision will be.

SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-

Give me a quick off time roadmap before your speeches (ex. "My case then their case"). That's it.
Always put FW at the top of the speech if present.
I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind me what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.

HOW I VOTE ❤️-

I usually only evaluate voters given to me in final. I need you to give me voters as early as rebuttal, and definitely by summary, but I won't carry anything through for my vote unless it is in final. Even if a contention is clean, you have to extend it with warrants if you want me to sign my ballot on it.

THEORY-

Theory is usually boring. I think it is only reasonable as a defensive mechanism against unreasonable Ks or framing. I don't mind paraphrasing and I think that too few teams think critically about the values of disclosure. Nevertheless, you should come to the round prepared to defend the way in which you debate if it is outside the norms of the nat circuit. I will vote on disclo and I will vote on para, I just don't like those rounds much.

I will evaluate on competing interps or reasonability, but I much prefer a round with competing interps. Feel free to use reasonability if you think it makes more sense for the round (I don't need a competing interp on macbook theory...)

It is my expectation that any debater in varsity on the nat circuit can defend against theory. This does not mean beating up on first time nat circuit debaters is a good idea for me, I will tank your speaks for it. It just means "I don't know how to respond" will never be any form of defense.

Ks- These are fun. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds. I am becoming increasingly open to these arguments when they are run well.

The Non Topical K

If we can link everything in debate (even organic agriculture) to nuke war then you can link every topic to feminism, the patriarchy, cap, etc. I think the ability to link these in are an important skill for a K debater. You can try to change my mind, I won't auto vote down a performance K or other non topical K because I recognize that they have had some positive impact on the debate space- I am just trying to be honest about how much I will demand from them. Your opponent will still need to run T properly for me to vote against your lack of topical links. If you are going to run a nontopical K then I would like your ROTB to be fairly broad so that your opponent can garner offense by doing something other than your method. It then becomes your burden to argue why your method is strongest and I think that is very educational.

The topical K

I am happy to hear a topical K, they are super fun if they are run well. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. I hate Ks that are super complicated. It is your job as a debater to simplify your arguments for presentation or it is going to be really hard for me to vote. My 2 biggest difficulties with most PF Ks I see are as follows

1. The literature is too dense and those who read it barely understand what it is saying because they have just stolen cut cards from policy and LD. Thus, I implore you to cut the card in a way that your message could be clear to the public forum, not someone who has a PhD in the subject. You don't just get to drop all efforts at persuasion because you are running a K. You don't have policy time so don't make policy arguments. Get depth not breadth.

2. The alt is heavily under-warranted and vague. Ex. If you are running cap, you can't just read some poli sci professor who claims socialism is the solution to the world's problems and that we have to have a worker's revolution. You have to actually tell me why this exact scenario leads to better outcomes than the squo of capitalism.

A well run, persuasive K with a based alt makes for a very fun round. If you believe this is what you have come to the round with, fire away.

If you have reached this point in my paradigm then tell me the starting lineup of any NBA team and I will floor my speaks at 29 (no cheating...). You can also tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump everyone's speaks +1 for actually reading my ramble.

POSTROUNDING

I always disclose. I already submitted the ballot but you can tell me you think my decision was wrong if it makes you feel better (it might have been).

QUICK IN-PERSON ROUND NOTE ❤️

I need two pieces of paper to flow on.

Nimish Jain Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:46 AM EDT

I am Nimish Jain, I am an incoming senior at Dougherty Valley High School. I have competed for a while in PF and did a little bit of speech. Please read my paradigm and email me if you have questions.

Short Version:

people say i am tech but i like to consider myself flay

I am the most annoying judge when it comes to warrants. I want every little thing in case to be extended, if you don't extend a warrant into why nuclear war leads to extinction i won't give u extinction.

If you and the opps agree that this round should be a lay round then I can be a lay judge or if yall even want to have a fun round where you just read a bunch of fun stuff (ie.climate change good) then let me know I would be totally down to evaluate it.

For 30 speaks buy me food (MAKE SURE IT IS FULL VEGETARIAN)... the following options are accepted:

Buy me Subway sandwich: (Veggie Delight. Italian Hurb and Cheese. Pepper Jack Cheese Toasted. Lettuce, Tomato, cucumbers, salt and pepper, honey mustard, guac)

Cheese Pizza (margarita preferably or anything vegetarian)

Taco Bell (2 Chalupas (replace meat with beans) and 1 drink (Mountain Diew Baja Blast))

Chipotle (Burrito with: Black and Pinto Beans, White Rice, Mild Salsa, Corn, Sour Cream, Lettuce, guac)

In n Out (2 Grilled Cheese with strawberry milkshake)

Long Version

For any tournament:

I am such a mid debater. Feel free to stalk me. Lay debate is superior but I enjoy tech too.

Top 14 at nationals. 3x Gold TOC (prom is the same day :(, i prefer my social life over debate), 2x Nationals, a bunch of random awards feel free to stalk me :)

Update: I have the right to drop you if I believe you are being racist, homophobic, and etc. I believe debate should be a safe space and I wont allow you to advance if you act rude. This also applies to cross. I really hate seeing crosses where 1 person is just talking. I want to see a nice cross where both teams are respectful. Just done be mean in general.

I want case the disclosed to me:I want the doc and the cards. Also rebuttal doc will be nice. You don't have to send it to the opponents but please send it to me. How to send an email

Topic Knowledge: If it is public forum i know the topic otherwise any other event i don't know anything.

Evidence Sharing: You can call for evidence but like please don't like call for 100 cards otherwise I will knock your speaks down. Btw after round I will probs be asking for cards so if I do plz send it to me. How to cut a card

Tech> Truth

Speed: I don't care if you speak fast. I always speak fast in round. But if you do speak fast, please send speech doc. Otherwise, if I don't catch something I won't evaluate it.

Weighing: Please do it in SUMMARY AND FF. If it is not in both then i don't evaluate the weighing. I also like simple weighing like magnitude and stuff. If you are going to give complex weighing explain it well. How to weigh. I will evaluate new weighing in first FF. Unless the other teams says 2nd FF is too late to bring up new weighing then I wont evaluate it if they dont say it then I will evaulate it.

2nd Rebuttal: YOU HAVE TO FRONTLINE. If you don't frontline in 2nd rebuttal then i immediately look at 1st speaking teams flow and if they have access to their case then no matter what they will win. How to give a rebuttal

Summary and FF: They should be pretty much the same. NO NEW EVIDENCE IN FF. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE. How to give a summary

Cross: I don't care. I wont listen to cross. How to do good cross

Warranting/Implications: Plz provide a warrant and EXTEND it. Tho if you do extend without warranting and the opponents do not call you out I might give you the arg. But if they do call you out then I won't consider the response. Debate has become very Blibby and I hate blibbyness. PLEASE IMPLICATE I BEG. I KNOW WHAT YOUR DEFENSE IS DOING USUALLY BUT I WON'T EVAL IT IF U DIDNT TELL ME.

warranted ev>warranted analytics>unwarranted ev (UNLESS IT IS A STAT, I LOVE NUMBERS!!!!)>unwarranted analytics

Theory and K's: Also I wouldn't run theory in MS :). I understand theory and I will evaluate if it is run properly. I am ok with K's. I am also ok with performance and non-topical. What theory is I THNK DISCLOSURE ON WIKI IS GOOD AND PARAPHRASING IS BAD I WILL HACK FOR THESE.

SIGNPOSTING IS NECESSARY: I need it otherwise I will be very confused and you don't want that happening.

Prepping: You have to time your own speech and prep. I won't do it because I am too lazy to.

Presumption: I am personally against presumption. I want to vote for the better debater so if I can't find a way to vote I will vote off a couple of things (based on priority).

If u tell me to vote for u off presumption then I will (But give me a reason why u deserve the presumption vote)
Who did the better link extensions
Who was the better lay debater
Who did the better weighing (if both teams lost case)

LINK EXTENSION: THEY HAVE TO BE READ IN SUMMARY AND BEYOND. IF NOT I DROP YOUR CASE.

If I am judging speech:

Have fun. I want to be entertained by your speech. Don't just give me the general 3 points. Give me something that makes you stand out because if you stand out you will do better. But if you stand out and fail then u will get low. A lot of times when i did speech i sang during my speech. Some of my favorite songs I have sang were hindi songs or nursery rhymes. I have even sang let it go in the past. But beware if u do that it better make sense.

LD judging: If I am judging LD then treat me like a flay. You can run whatever you want but you gotta explain it to me. I am totally down to judge Ks and stuff but dont expect me to fully understand it

Leonardo Jia Hire

Shaun Jones Hire

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 6:57 PM EDT

Basis Independent McLean '24 |PF| shaunjones247@gmail.com (he/him)

Debated for 3 years locally as Basis Independent McLean Z[J] and 1 year nationally as Basis Independent McLean [J]R. I was ok at both.

Quick excerpt about the local VA circuit from my good friend (and technically local rival) Connor Chun:

"I dislike much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes?? Is it really impossible to find any judge who at least has some idea of what debate is??? It should be pretty obvious which circuit I prefer..."

TLDR: Typical Tech > Truth judge. Good with speed, please send doc. Anything bigoted gets a calm L20 and a report to tab. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad. Debate is a game, yall should be enjoying yourselves and having fun. Please just refer to me as Shaun, not judge. Please tell me if there is anything I can do to accommodate you in your round!

Not a fan of the oldheads who proclaim "PF is not policy-lite!!!" and "Put the Public back in Public Forum!!!" . To say that an entire event is getting ruined because people are innovating away from your personal debate style of the mid to late 20th century is... incredibly self-centered... to say the least.

Prefs Sheet:

1 - Substance

2 - Theory / Topical K's

3 - Non - T K's

4 - Tricks (I find them abusive but theyre kinda funny)

Strike - Phil, High Theory (Its not that i dont like them, its that I have no idea how to properly evaluate them)

Stuff specific to the local Virginia Circuit: Disclosure isn't a norm, I won't vote off of it. Substance only unless both teams agree to do a prog round. I'm also not allowed to disclose rfd after round - you'll have to wait in anxiety. BUT PLEASE if you're a techy team go all out - show these kids what national circuit debate is really like.

Content Warnings:

Please provide content warnings if you are about to discuss sensitive topics in the form of an anonymous opt out form. If you don't do this and read distressing content I will drop your speaks to the lowest.

Prep Time:

pls track your own prep time, i'm too lazy. i trust u wont lie to me. Flex prep is fine.

Evidence:

Warranted Analytics > Unwarranted Cards

Add me on the email chain. If youre going fast send a carded doc so I can follow along and so that we don't waste time calling for evidence. If you don't send a carded doc before the speech please at least send one afterwards - be wary that I'm gonna let the other team steal prep in this case. I have an extremely low bar when it comes to responses that indict evidence from Medium. If your case has evidence from Medium it better a) be from a real human being and b) have sufficient warranting for what you're reading in case.

I don't really care about clipping unless its super egregious e.g. a team deliberately highlights a part of the card that has a major implication/impact, doesnt read it, doesnt mark the doc, then collapses on that arg using that highlighted part in the extension. Other than that, I'm not gonna drop a team because they forgot to rehighlight cards after cutting down case.

I'm probably not a great judge for evidence challenges. To win one you would have to prove that a) a team deliberately cut a card to completely misrepresent what its saying and/or b) fabricated evidence. Doing either of these things is quite difficult, so you're better off just pointing out their horrible evidence ethics and it casts alot of doubt on them on my end.

Speeches:

Please signpost. I'm good with speed and I'll clear you if needed. I stop flowing 5 seconds over time.

Cross:
Nothing said in cross goes on my flow unless it's brought forward into subsequent speeches. Be assertive, but not overly aggressive. A good cross will benefit your speaks, even if you lose the round overall. If everyone is in agreement we can skip grand for 1 min of extra prep. Open cross is fine if that's your preference, just make sure to ask the other team first.

2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've basically lost the round and the other team can call a TKO after 1st summary if they play their cards right. Generated offense in 2nd rebuttal has to be in the form of turns and not just new DA's. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it shouldve been in constructive.

Summary:

No new evidence. (Unless its to frontline your own case in first summary)

Defense isn't sticky. Please extend defense in every speech; you can't forget to extend a piece of defense in summary and do a ritual in final focus to summon it again. I won't flow it. I should be able to draw a line from the 2AC to the 2AR.

Extensions don't have to be perfect. As long as you extend uniqueness, link chain, and impact, ur good. If I don't hear an extension ur doomed lowkey. U should also collapse in summary, its a good idea. This also applies to turns: you have to extend UQ, the Link turn itself, and an impact or else I can only eval it as defense.

A note about turns:

Don't extend UQ? I would be hesitant to vote on it. Why? Reading your own UQ and extending a turn means that all I have to do is vote on a risk of your impact happening. Don't extend the turn itself? Self-explanatory. Don't extend an impact? I can't evaluate it as offense absent some implications that affect diff areas of case. I'm ok with impact turns (dedev, spark, wipeout).

Weighing is very very very important. I like seeing direct comparisons between impact scenarios and links. This means that the weighing has to be comparative. Weighing is not "we cause a nuclear war" and nothing else. I want to hear "We outweigh on timeframe because our impact triggers instantly while theirs takes x years" - that's a direct comparison. If teams present different weighing mechanisms, please meta-weigh. If neither side meta-weighs I default to timeframe + magnitude.

My personal thoughts on probability weighing: The only probability weighing that I will buy is off an implication of a non-unique, saying that the link did trigger at some point but the impact never happened. If the other team can't frontline this properly and you do probability weighing, I'd buy it as long as its actually comparative to your case. The probability weighing that I would never buy is the blippy, unwarranted, new in 1st final weighing that just says "nuclear war has never actually happened before yap yap yap we outweigh" - thats just new defense you never read in rebuttal. Debate is a simulation - even if the argument is space col, if its conceded it has 100% probability and if weighed properly I will vote on it.

Final Focus:

Final should mirror summary. If the 2AR makes new responses not present in the 1AR then the 2NR can make frontlines that wouldve been in the 1NR had they never went new in first final. I'd also be inclined to give them a 5 second grace period bc they have to frontline something new. I will try to protect 1st Final Focus - meaning that I will be heavily scrutinizing 2nd final to make sure everything said there was actually in summary.

Framing

I like a good framing debate. I won't accept "Other team has to respond in their constructive" or "Other teams can't read link ins to the framing" as underviews or general responses. Youre just avoiding clash at that point. Grow up. Nuclear war doesn't link into SV framing from a technical or truth perspective. This won't factor into my decision because that would be intervening but I will a) have a very low bar for responses against it and b) would not like voting off of it. I also don't buy prefiat weighing off of a discourse argument - I really don't get how you deserve a ballot for simply talking about an issue regardless of the postfiat outcome.

Theory:

I'll evaluate disclo, trigger warning and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions tho. If theres no offense from either side I err to those positions. Don't run theory on people who are obviously novices ('obviously' means their record is on the entries page and its all PF-Novice division). If you're in varsity anything is fair game. I don't care if you don't know how to respond to theory, "theory is dumb" and "we dont know how to respond" are not responses at all.

I default to reasonability because i can't just make up an interp if im not competing in the round so PLEASE if you're arguing against disclo/paraphrase/trigger warning you HAVE to give me a counter interp or else i err against you. Personally, I err against friv theory so if you want me to vote on a friv shell just read a CI.Just read a counter interp, it greatly increases your chances of winning.

I (might) pursue law in the future, so spirit of the interp is not something I'm gonna buy. What the interp says is whats being debated, you can't change that. Make sure your interps are as specific as possible so noone can exploit them.

If you are from a large school (>5 unique entries on your school's disclo page) and read small schools in response to the shell I'm tanking your speaks even if you win the argument. (My school has had 1 national circuit team ever and we still disclosed every single round we did that year - even locals). Just disclose, its not that hard.

IVI's are weird but if you read one and win it ill eval it.

K's:

I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. Never ran them when I competed soplease warrant things out for me to understand. I will vote for things I'm ideologically opposed to (like cap good) if the warranting is sufficient. Just win the flow. Don't run Afropess if you're not black, don't run Fem Rage if you're not female - identifying. Doing either of those is kinda weird.

Presumption:

Depends on the topic, but for this topic I presume the team that lost the flip. (for on balance topics i presume neg)

Speaks:

I generally give high speaks (28 - 29.5 range), but it's not too hard to get a 30 from me. Just have a good strategy (like going for turns, innovative weighing I like) and you'll be guaranteed high speaks. If you go all in on a turn and it works in your favor you're guaranteed a 29.5 at minimum.

Postrounding:

You can, and should, postround me. Postrounding helps me as a judge improve in the future, and gives you, the competitor, a better understanding of how I voted and how to handle similar situations in the future rounds.

Fun Stuff:

If both teams agree, we can do a lay round and everyone gets 30s. Will vote off of vibes.

Any reference to the English football club Tottenham Hotspur that makes me laugh will be +0.25 speaks (COYS!)

If you truly believe that a team has no possible path to the ballot after a summary speech, you can call a TKO. If you're right, everyone in the round gets 30s. If you're wrong, its an L25 for you.

Good luck, have fun, and do your best!

Roy Kapoor Hire

Last changed on Wed May 1, 2024 at 3:30 PM PDT

TLDR: bro be so fr this is not that long read it bruv, but anyways 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, butI HIGHLY SUGGESTthat you don't spam under-warranted and blippy analytics. Conversely, ILOVEwarranted, 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."

Kyuryeon Kim Hire

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2024 at 1:32 AM MDT

Hi, I'm a Public Forum Debater with 3 years of experience and counting.

Add me to any email chains, and sending me your speech docs, rebuttal docs, and/or card docs would be very appreciated - ryank090400@gmail.com

In terms of speaking speed, please try to speak at a reasonable rate. If you really need to speak really fast, sending me your speech doc is not optional. I will not weigh anything that I don't understand. However, please note that a speech doc doesn't necessarily mean I'm gonna read through the entire thing word for word, so just talk like a normal human being pls thx

Tech > truth lol

I don't flow crossfire - if you want something from cross to be weighed, bring it up in a speech. However, I will be listening to make sure that teams don't lie about what happened in crossfire, and cross will affect speaker points. If neither side has questions remaining during crossfire, please feel free to end it early. Also feel free to do silly things in Grand Cross

I won't weigh any new evidence brought up in Final Focus/second summary..

Theory and Ks - I don't weigh disclosure theory. Other theory is fine ig but if you wanna run friv theory make sure both you and your opponents agree on running friv theory preround and then show me that both teams agreed. In terms of Ks, as someone who has never debated nor debated against a K, if I can understand it, I will weigh it, if I can't, I won't. Do as you please.

Time yourself - I'll give you 10 seconds overtime and then I'll stop listening. I won't verbally intervene until you're a minute over, but just know that I didn't hear anything you said in the past 50 seconds. However, this is only if I'm actually timing the speeches - I forget a lot of the time so I will be expecting you to be keeping your own time for the most part. You have my permission to start screaming at me in the middle of a speech if your opponents are 15+ seconds overtime.

Speaker Points -

Roadmaps, signposting, and clear weighing will boost your speaker points and help you win the round. Overall, just be organized in what you are saying.

I'll generally give debaters a 28 or over, unless you're racist, homophobic, rude, etc etc.

I love funny cases go for them :)

Humor is always a plus unless it is at the expense of someone else

+0.5 for sending me speech docs - I have bad ears sometimes, esp if it's an online tourney

+0.5 for any references you make that I understand. Feel free to ask me if I'm familiar with anything preround, or you could just try and hope for the best

+0.5 if you turn whenever you read a turn, play music during cross, idk other silly goofy antics

Disclosure -

If you ask, I will disclose results and RFD unless the tournament specifically prohibits it.

Manhua Kim Hire

Shalom Kihara Kimani Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 8:38 PM EAT

Yes email chain:kiharakimani61@gmail.com

About me:

I am a proud Kenyan who grew up arguing over anything and everything until I discovered debate and the amazing and diverse individuals within it. I have been participating in, judging, and training debates for the last 3 years. Away from that, I alongside my debate club committee have organized a number of tournaments over the years. I am widely experienced in different formats of debates across different circuits in the world. I enjoy free thinkers, adaptable minds, and a keen sense of detail, and all this for me is part of the characteristics needed to be a good debater. Finally, I love dogs, and that about sums it up.

Judging Rubric :

1. Clarity: At this point what I want you to tell me is what the debate is about, and in doing so provide strong reasons and evidence as well as what your claim should be evaluated on. For example, it would help a lot if you could compile a short history of facts, characteristics, and effects of the subject in matter or create a probable future in regards to calculated eventualities from your claims.

2. Mechanization: This for me is how well you arrange your points to fully bring out your case with enough matter to stand against the opponent's case as well as proving a good basis as to why your case stands out over all others. I consider team dynamic as part of this in that, a well-worked-out presentation from you and your partner should incorporate a united front with no contradiction, as well as strong supportive extensions that solidify your case in addition to tearing down your opponents.

3. Weighing: The most important thing at this point is to completely prove the other team wrong, most responses in debates only mitigate the other team's arguments rather than prove their whole case wrong. This can be avoided by simply taking down your opponent's case through either doing of the two. First, supporting your own case, or secondly, exposing the opponents' case or claim. Both of these factors share similar metrics in regards to how you present the case. For example, If You can show how the opponent's best-case scenario is flawed through metrics (such as a case of urgency, what affects more people etc.) and provide reasonable evidence as to why there is a high likelihood of conviction from me. You can as well defend your own claim by showing how your average to the worst point is better than the opponent's best point and with proper metrics with evidence solidify your cases (Remember you can you two or more metrics co-dependently to enforce your case that be careful to emphasize on the correlation).

4. Engagement: At this point, I will be looking out for how well you are able to respond and object to your opponent, I want to see a clear confrontation between both sides. That said, no watering down of opponent points without reasonable claims or completely assuming the other side, in short, I want you to address the other team's case wholesomely.

5. Structure: I honestly think that if the first 4 criteria are met the structure naturally follows, in light of this just make sure to keep it simple but detailed, make sure that all participants can clearly understand you and you'd be in my good books. If you had an outline of your presentation that would definitely bump it up a notch.

6. Conduct: Simply put, we are all here to learn, grow and empower each other, and with that said I will not be taking any slander at all in regards to ethnicity, culture, sexuality, or stereotypes. You shall respect your fellow participants and any violation of this will result in repercussions and a report to the organizers. With that cleared up, my number 1 rule is, 'Take a breathe and let's have fun with it.'

Michael Kirylau Hire

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 2:22 PM CDT

TLDR: flow judge, please collapse and weigh, quality > quantity, ok with some speed

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

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

Background

Competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). Judged mostly PF for around a year (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style/Strategy Preference

I can judge speed assuming you send docs, but I’d rather not unless you’re very very confident in your clarity. You should SLOW DOWN in summary and final focus.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link, internal link(s), and impact of the argument you’re going for. To extend the link/IL/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/IL/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants that were introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there’s multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. I default prereq > mag > prob if there's none.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond to it, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I evaluate progressive debate in largely the same way I evaluate traditional debate: I look for who’s winning what offense and then who outweighs in the end. However, I am still MUCH more confident in evaluating traditional substance debate.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness.

I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous. If there's a safety issue, you don't need to run theory; I will stop the round immediately and contact tab.

I will NOT give RVIs.

I will NOT evaluate tricks.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best to evaluate one if you read it, but slow down and explain it to me like it’s my first time hearing the literature.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

Ashutosh Komali Daude school of goats

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 5:33 AM EDT

My email: ashutosh.komali@gmail.com, add me to any speech or card doc.

A bit about me, I am a freshman in college (Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech.) and have competed in many events consistently over 4 years, mainly in Public Forum debate where I was the AK PF captain. Other events I did were Congressional Debate, Big Questions and World Schools Debate for Ardrey Kell High School/Carolina West District. Hint: World Schools is my favorite event and is the best event, so even though I am an experienced judge, a well warranted "lay" debate is the best strategy for me rather than devoting the round to a fast flow debate

Please feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts.

TLDR; I hate prog, treat me like a shitty lay judge even if I can evaluate your argumentation, don’t make me to extra work to figure out who won, pls have fun.

Most importantly, I know how stressful a debate round can get, I know the anxiety that debaters get before round. I can't really do anything about this, but just know that I want you to just have fun, that's what debate should be, and I'll try my best to make the environment lighthearted and fun. There is nothing better than a cohesive debate community and becoming friends with people you see consistently at tournaments is just top tier, so while you should do your best and take things seriously, don't be so tough on yourself. This is an extremely difficult activity, and while I am your judge, I'm not going to "judge" you based on your debate abilities, I will just do my best to help you improve upon yourself. Anyone who knows me in this activity knows that what I valued most in debate was trying to help others.

General PF Stuff:

Tech>Truth in almost any circumstance as long as it's not offensive or absolutely absurd (impacting out to 1 trillion humans)

Prog Debate: While everything I say below is true, I am a substance judge and will always prefer a very lay and trad round. I don't really care how you feel about this, but I hate progressive rounds, and though I won't drop you for it, I'm unlikely to prefer the team that reads it, especially if it is being spread. Reading theory against novices is lame and don't do it to teams just looking for good experience in a tournament. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t read it on teams that are being absurdly exclusionary, but don’t read prog just to read prog.

Theory/T: I'm not the most experienced with it but I get the gist of it. Theory doesn't have to be answered in 2nd case if they are trying to keep the round trad. You must ask your opponents if they are okay with theory, just a general question as theory debaters won't yet know what potential abuse is made in the round, the only exception to run theory if opponents disagree is if a TW is necessary.

Kritik/K's: Fine, not my expertise but if you explain it to me like I was born yesterday, then it will be fine. Try to keep it in the realm of topical K's but do as you will.

Strike me if you don't like my policy about progressive args.

Speaker Points: I won't go below 28, unless you are being excessively aggressive and/or rude or say anything offensive or discriminatory.

Don't read 30 speaks theory, please don't skew the round for this, you have a better chance of 30 speaks without this.

These all apply only to the speaker who did them:

Make an avatar(both avatar franchises included) reference: +0.5
Make a Stranger Things reference: +1

Speech docs: I hope this is obvious from what I just said, but don't try to spread, especially if you mess up your speaking a lot, but if you do spread, send speech doc.

I generally will not ask for a speech doc because I am fairly fine with flowing unless you spread very fast, which I considered being 250 or 260+ wpm.

Frameworks: I default cost-benefit analysis/utilitarianism, but you can have your own FW. Provide warranting for why this is the FW of the round tho, or else I will think it is very weak. Second case can always have a counter FW or just respond in rebuttal.

Mavericks: Everything the same except I'll give mav's 5 minutes of prep

Speech Analysis:

Case: Have clear warranting, it can be obscure or unique, but it should make sense. Case comprising of cut cards is recommended for your own usefulness, I am fine with anything paraphrased, but if a card is miscut or paraphrased incorrectly, I will drop it from my flow. Note: this can only happen if opponents call cards and address cards and I follow up with the card.

1st Rebuttal: Pre-emptive frontlines are nice, you should know what your job is, go top down on their case and respond to it to the best of your ability, addressing cross questions can help as well.

2nd Rebuttal: Make sure you frontline here, I won't evaluate it in second summary, feels abusive to me. Respond to their case obviously.

Don't read cards only, make analytical responses, these often have the best warranting throughout the round so they are useful, and when reading any carded response, make implications to why they clash with your opponents claims. Don't say something then not tell me why it it important.

Weighing is always welcome here.

1st Summary: Make sure you frontline your case well, only place for you to frontline. If you want me to evaluate something in my decision, you need to include it here. I advise you to collapse on your case, don't need to if opponents didn't do very well on responding. Make sure you weigh here.

2nd Summary: Again, no new frontlining that wasn't in rebuttal. Should address first summary. Nothing really different from first summary.

NO NEW RESPONSES, I get annoyed by this. This should be obvious, but no new arguments, I won't evaluate them.

If new arguments are made in summary and you respond to them just to be on the safe side then that's fine but I generally won't encourage it as I drop new args(unless its frontlining in first summary) and a time suck.

1st Final Focus: I agree that this is some disadvantage since you don't get the last word, but this is a big reason you should pre-emptively respond to their 2nd FF. Again extend things you want me to evaluate. Weigh.

2nd FF: Take advantage of this, you have the last word in the round. Don't do anything unfair, but if the round went very clash(AKA went to backlining and beyond), new analysis of the arguments are welcome here, this goes for first FF too. Weigh.

Your Final Focus should practically write the RFD for me, even if you are losing hard, don't give up and make a convincing final statement as to why you should win.

WEIGHING: To me, weighing and impact calc is very important, as even if you concede to all of your opponents links, you can still win off of weighing impacts with a clear link into them with your arguments. Magnitude is often the default in rounds, but differentiate your weighing from your opponents by using other weighing mechanisms too. Meta-weighing is often not included in many rounds I watch but it is a great tool, helps me in my decision and is always welcome.

Although it is convenient for the debaters, I don't believe in sticky defense, just don't do it. Extend.

I may call for cards once the round is over for me to clear up any suspicious evidence or cards that are challenged during the round.

Finally and probably most important, please make an implication of any argument that you extend in the back half of the round that has clash on both sides(hopefully a lot of them exist) because without implications I can't easily tell who wins an argument if they don't interact with the other side.

Andrew J Li Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:41 AM CDT

Hi, I am a current debater for A&M Consolidated High School. Put me on the email chain: landrew0023@gmail.com

Do whatever you want and it will be evaluated except in cases where

-- you make racist/homophobic/bigoted/etc. comments

-- you fake evidence and or paraphrase egregiously

Doing either of those things may result in you losing the round depending on the circumstances. Otherwise, I'm open to all types of arguments. I enjoy technical substance rounds where cool and interesting arguments are being made, just explain very clearly how your argument operates.

-- Please send speech docs, especially if you spread. If I can't flow something, it won't be a voting issue.

-- Second rebuttal frontlines everything, you can kick out of any arguments by conceding defense.

-- Defense is not sticky.

-- Extend case through summary and final focus.

-- Don't take forever pulling up evidence.

-- If you go over time, I will let my timer go off while you are speaking.

-- Read content warnings.

General Preferences:

Weighing is the easiest way to win the round because it determines what I evaluate first. Weigh everything from defense, turns, case offense, etc. and make it clear to have an easy path to the ballot. Make sure your weighing is comparative, i.e. "we outweigh because our impact is more severe for X reason while their impact is less severe for Y reason." Without comparative worlds I will hesitate to vote on weighing because just because you prove your impact is bad doesn't mean their impact cannot be worse.

-- Absent weighing, I will presume/intervene slightly "shrug". *don't make me do this*

-- Conceded arguments are easier to buy and outweigh.

-- Be careful with probability weighing. Don't just read new defense in back half and call it weighing. Probability weighing is reading empirics to prove an existing response, not an entirely new response. If you opponent does this, point it out.

Warranting is crucial for every response or claim made. If a claim is made without a warrant it will be evaluated, but more weight will be given to a counterclaim with a warrant attached. Just make sure you explain the underlying reason for why your argument is true.

Spreading is ok, but you must send a doc. Make your tags and cards super clear. Don't clip you might get dropped based off of how bad it is. If you spread without a doc, there is a risk nothing you say will be flowed.

LARP:

-- IMO best form of debate. Do whatever and have fun.

Theory:

I default to competing interps. Please don't make random things into theory debates if they don't have to be. Extend EVERY part of your shell or CI please.

-- I will evaluate CW theory, but only if the arguments are genuinely triggering. Otherwise, this type of theory is just a way to respond to Ks without actually engaging.

-- Paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I won't hack.

-- Weigh your voters

-- On no RVIs, PF norms are super weird so you should specify if you’re talking about defensive of offensive RVIs. *IF your warrants apply to offensive RVIs and are won, then I won’t evaluate offense off of CIs or turns. If your RVI is about defensive reasons to vote for them i.e. “they shouldn’t win for meeting the threshold for being fair,” I will still evaluate offense. I will also still buy an IVI even if you win no RVIs.

-- I will err against theory if it's frivolous.

K/FW:

Soft-left arguments are appreciated. Some of my favorite rounds that I have ever watched were debaters reading soft-left cases. Please don't read T on a soft-left aff and actually engage with the links. *Unless the ROTB is a prefiat voter that you cannot link into.

-- T framework is always a valid way to respond to Non-T Ks.

-- If you paraphrase a K, I will err heavily against you on any theoretical arguments made.

DAs:

Spamming DAs in rebuttal is pretty abusive, so threshold for summary spinning frontlines dumps will be much lower. i.e. "this was a 2 second blip and no scope because xyz"

Trix:

sure you will get low speaks. Also make these more funny than "truth testing ok 27 reasons you presume neg"

Presumption:

Only when there's no offense and I default to loser of flip.

Speaks:

You will lose points for:

-- Paraphrasing

-- No speech docs

-- Taking forever to pull up evidence

-- Being abusive with your practices

-- Bad research practices

You will gain points for:

-- Having good strat

-- Disclosing

-- Reading cut cards

-- Sending speech docs

-- Debating well

At the end of the day, this activity is meant for you to have fun.

Make the round fun and don't take it too seriously.

+0.1 speaks for every time you make me laugh.

Alex Liu Hire

William Liyuan Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 5:23 PM EDT

Hi, I'm William Liyuan. I debate for Boston Latin and Northeast Independent on the local and national circuit

I'm a pretty standard flow judge

General Etiquette

Don't spread. You can go fast though
Pre-flow b4 round
Have evidence in cut card format ready if people call for them. I won’t look at evidence unless absolutely necessary
Time yourself, don't go overtime. a couple seconds are fine.
I will disclose and give RFDs after round, I’m happy to disclose speaks too. lmk
no postrounding plz

Debate

Respect your opponents and their arguments.
I’d like to have a tech round please. Debate to your utmost ability
I'm tech>truth. However, plz warrant and implicate everything you say. There’s a threshold of believability, the less intuitive the claim, the more warranting I expect.
PLEASE SIGNPOST. Give off-time roadmaps
Absolutely NO racism/sexism/homophobia I will drop you with L20s. Include CW/TW and opt-out if running something that needs it.
I will evaluate theories, Ks, etc. Run at your own risk though. I will probably not vote for frivolous theory or tricks. Don’t run in an exclusionary manner
I LOVE frameworks and overviews. Please by all means run them and win them.
defense is not sticky, extend everything w/ warrants

if you're going to kick out of a turn, you have to tell me EXACTLY why you get to do that.

How I make a decision:

I look to the argument that has the cleanest link into a well-weighed impact. I’ll vote where it's easiest for me to vote. Overall, I prioritize impact access, therefore, link-level comparisons make my decision much easier. The amount of defense and the degree to which it is responded to will determine how much access into your impact you get. If you are going for a turn, it must be weighed against the original case for me to evaluate it. I’m not inclined to resolve clash and vote there. If I have to, I’ll look first to weighing done here and then to evidence and what I believe to be true.

Lmk if you have any questions!! : )

Achyuth Madhuvan Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:02 AM CDT

I am a current PF Varsity Competitor, Familiar with almost all types of speech events and all debate events. I am very technically knowledgable, do not limit the types of arguments you run.

Debate/general

Explain your arguments to me clearly. Recommended speaking speed depends on the event, but I have no qualms judging a high-speed debate round with technical terms. Voters are a must, the team who gives me the easiest path to the ballot will be winning the round. Speaker points will be given based upon speaking skills, not argumentative skills, and thus are not reflective of your technical skill as a debater, but with the persuasiveness and fluidity of your speeches.

Speech/ general

Body language is very important, I want to be able to understand your tone with more than just your voice. Time signals are fine if you request them, and I won't be too mad at a stutter here or there, especially in outrounds. BE ENGAGING AND FLUID. I cannot stress this enough. You must be able to draw me in with a good performance, do proper accents if you choose to have them, and create an overall good experience for the watcher. For extemp, make sure you speak clearly, and try to be a little more concise with your arguments, saying something with too many words is a big ick. Again for extemp, you can be the most persuasive person in the world, but I will down you if you come up to the stage and begin to spew utter nonsense. Have fun!

PFDEBATE:

My critiques for this will be much more lengthy than the others, due to this being my main event.

For Varsity: Debate is a game, go crazy. (no counterplans)

Speech by speech expectations:

Constructive: For at least your constructive, I expect you to be proficient enough with your case to be able to read you case in a fluid manner, with tone and inflection in your voice. If you can, eye contact is appreciated, and is an immediate increase in speaks. I will provide a 10-15 second grace period after your speech, but anything after that is completely ignored. I won't tell you when time is up, so make sure to time your own speeches. For later speeches, cross applying evidence from your constructive is very powerful for me, since this is evidence that has been in since the beginning of the round. For speed, I prefer constructive to be a little slower than most other speeches, to make it understandable, but I won't down a varsity debater for spreading 4 contentions and theory.

Crossfire: Not a super important part of the debate but super interesting for me, please make sure to be respectful. Anything past 2 follow up questions is just scummy and you hogging cross time. Try and come to crossfire prepared to ask questions, awkward silence on either just makes the debate less fun. Evidence should be called in prep time, not crossfire, however you can ask me in crossfire to look at a piece of evidence that your opponents have that you think is false. Falsifying evidence does not mean that I will drop you, but I won't consider any part of the argument as offense for either side.

Rebuttal: 1st rebuttal should 100% attacking, unless you're defending theory arguments. For this I don't really have a speed limit whatsoever, go crazy, but be considerate if this is a novice PF round. I know literally all of the terms, and I will basically evaluate anything other than counterplans because that's literally not allowed in the event. (If you run a counterplan in novice, I will drop you). I don't have a specific standard for analytics vs carded responses, but I will prefer whichever argument you tell me to in round. Clash is very important to me, so make sure that your frontlines and attacks are extremely responsive, this will make me disposed towards buying your argument. Terminal defense for me is super important and will probably lose you the round if you don't respond to it, unless you weigh out of it.

Summary: A super important speech imo, make sure that you weigh properly and frontline your arguments.DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY. For you novices reading this, this means that you must extend your arguments through every speech otherwise I won't consider it. Once again, you must be very responsive in this speech, and should probably start narrowing down the arguments in the round. Make sure to tell me what arguments are important and why I should vote for you. Finally,WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. The emphasis I put on weighing is so immense, that you can literally LOSE the ENTIRE ROUND'S arguments, but if you have the most fire weighing ever, you can literally turn the tide of the debate with this speech. Also no new arguments please.

Final Focus: Condense the round for me, think of your arguments as two ships sailing past each other in the night. Make your words the light that lets me see the ships. Explain to me why you won the round and why my ballot goes for you. Basically, easiest path to the ballot wins, I want to see you race there.

Postrounding: honestly funny, you can postround me even before I submit my ballot, know that it will never change my decision whatsoever. Critiques will always be given after the round on request, and I will always be disclosing.

Secrets of the ballot: Since you made it this far, here are some fun tips to win you the round. Starting off your final focus with a catchy phrase or an appropriate literary sequence will always engage me further. IMMEDIATE MAXIMUM SPEAKS FOR ALL DEBATERS WHO SPIN IN A CIRCLE EVERY TIME THEY READ A TURN. Finally, managing to rickroll me in the middle of the round will lead to maximum speaks,

Arnav Mahendra Hire

Yug Mehta Hire

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 10:35 AM CDT

=============================READ BELOW IF IN PF(Congress in under PF paradigm)================

Hi Debaters!

I am a "flay" judge when it comes to PF debate. I am aware of all debate terminologies and jargon. I prefer lay speed for speaking, but if anyone wants to spread or go quick, just add me to the email chain of your speech docs.

If you're in Novice/JV

I'm a pretty standard flow or "flay" judge. Here's what you should do in each speech

constructive: read it; emphasize key points, clarity is key here; no super spreading
first rebuttal: refute the opponent's case thoroughly, brownie points for rhetoric
second rebuttal: refute opponent's rebuttal(aka frontlining) + refute their true case
summaries: explain the arguments that I should vote on in the round, explain why you win them, and weigh impacts. don't try to recap all of your arguments here — pick your strongest one and go for that(collapsing)
final focus: summary but 2 minutes

if thou dost not signpost, on the ballot i will probably roast. please tell me which argument you're on when you start talking about it. it makes my job so much easier.

please ask me any questions you have about debate!

general stuff you should probably read if you're competing in varsity

- set up an email chain before the round and add yugmehta141@gmail.com

- concessions during crossfire are binding in the round so long as it's brought up by the other team in a speech.

- i evaluate the round in the following order: all weighing>link-level debate>evidence/warrant debate

- weighing is important but not if done wrong. nuke war magnitude weighing doesn't matter if there are 20 pieces of terminal defense telling me why it never happens. go for weighing when it makes sense, not just because your coach told you to.

- any speed is fine so long as you're not incoherent. if i need a doc to understand your speech, i will not vote for you. Here speak like I am a lay judge.

- postround me, it makes me a better judge.

Extra points

- if you want me to vote on an argument it needs a proper extension: recap the UQ, link chain, and impact.

evidence ethics are atrocious here. to encourage you to be better:

+0.5 speaks if both sides set up an email chain before the round and use it to call for cards
+0.5 speaks if both sides send each other (and me) all case evidence after reading constructive

- if you've ever debated on nats circuit, i much prefer that style of debate.

speaker points

- make me audibly laugh = 29.5(or higher if you debate well)

- making opponent laugh = 30

- disrespectful behavior = 25.

- bigoted/exclusionary behavior = as low as I can go + L.

long, not well answers in cross will drop your speaks significantly. concision = productive crossfires.

Overall, I am looking for a respectful, competitive, and lowkey chill round.

============================================CONGRESS==========================

Hi congressmen and congresswoman(debaters),

CONGRESS
I rank each bill separately and then rank speakers based on cumulative rankings on each bill. If the chamber does 3 bills with base 2, I will find some equitable way to rank the round. I like breaking Congress down into 3 categories that I rank based on: round integration, content, and delivery in that order.

Some notes on how to score well for round integration:

REFUTE-- Refute the best argument on the other side. There are 2 parts to refs: name-dropping and disproving/outweighing their argument -- if 1 of those doesn't happen, it doesn't count in my eyes. Without refs outside of the sponsor, you won't get more than a 4 (likely a 3) for speech score.
EXTEND-- Meet burdens that haven't been met (no, not your lazy quantification), give terminalization of an impact or proving that you have a better solvency.
WEIGHING-- Weigh the AFF and NEG worlds, not individual arguments. I order weighing as follows :
Pre-Requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability

Some notes on content:

ARGUMENTS-- Provide good arguments. If you have a unique argument that shifts the round, go for it. If you have round-winning framing, give it to me. I'm open to anything.
EVIDENCE-- Give strong quantifications wherever possible.Month and year minimum (last 5 years). Author credentials appreciated but not required.
PRINCIPLE-- These have a place, but are rarely used correctly. If you know how to run a principled argument in World Schools, go ahead, you'll do well. Otherwise, chances are it'll hurt you.

Some notes on delivery:

INTROS-- A good introduction goes a long way, especially jokes and funny intros if done well. If you use an intro that's been used before (especially if by another debater),
PADS-- The less you look at your pad, the better. If you wanna pull a power move and go no pad, I'll pick you up for sure, just make sure it doesn't come at the expense of strong refutations. I don't like iPads, but probably won't drop you if you use one. Legal pads are preferred.
I LOVE RHETORIC, USE IT!

Rehan Merchant Hire

Vedant Misra Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:17 AM CDT

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

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

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

TL; DR in bold

Alr, time for the juicy stuff:

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

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

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

*****SUBSTANCE*****

I like hypertech rounds with evidence and spreading, but that doesn't mean you should have a lack of warranting. Please warrant no matter what (including extensions of case and responses!)
FOR SPREADING: I can go 300 to 350ish wpm. After that, u risk losing me on the flow. (would also be down to hear spreading theory)
Second rebuttal needs to frontline all offense and most defense. I feel like its hella unfair to 1st summary if you don't. They could point out that defense was conceded, then 2nd summ comes with some new frontlines. Don't necessarily frontline defense if you don't plan on going for it.
First summary can extend how they want to. I've voted for debaters that straight up just went for turns, or just went for their case and a few pieces of defense. Bottom line, go for SOME offense in the back half.
In terms of the entire round, weigh. ESPECIALLY IN THE BACK HALF, the best way to my ballot is to extend case, weigh comparatively, and extend the most terminal stuff on your opponents case. Lowk, if you can just explain to me why I should prioritize your offense over your opponents', it'll probably suffice as weighing. Just be sure to do a comparative.
Terminalize your impacts. 'Cybercrime increasing' doesn't matter to me. $10 trillion + GDP losses -> poverty as a result of cybercrime does tho
Make a really good comparative and meta-weigh. I LOVE META-WEIGHING. I rly wish more teams used it.
i do think evidence is important but i need warrants with claims. in the complete absence of warrants in evi, good analytical warrants > unwarranted cards. pls extend nicely, warrant, implicate, and weigh <3 evidence misconstruction is bad and if you do it you may have to lose :(
At the end of the day, I approach my flow and look to see who had the best comparative, then the cleanliness of the flow, and then the best defense/offense on the opps' case. To quote Katheryne Dwyer, " i think the best debaters are ones that build a narrative and still engage well on the tech (which is my way of saying poor spreading, short extensions, and a bunch of underwarranted blippy frontlines are not the way to my heart nor my ballot). my favorite debates are pretty quick techy substance rounds that still have lots of warranting and very clear ballot directive language in the backhalf." Watch Edina JS vs Strake Jesuit DY Emory Quarters on YT for a pretty good example (minus the deont stuff in the 1NR).
Carded weighing is GASSSS.
I like framework debates. Feel free to read new frameworks in every speech minus summaries and final foci. If it's conceded, then u don't have to ext everything. I.e. if someone concedes a 30-45 second structural violence framework, only spend like 10-15 seconds on it in final focus.

EVIDENCE:

This one's important.

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

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

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

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

PROGRESSIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD Paradigm

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

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

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

SPEAKS:

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

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

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

IMPORTANT STUFF:

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

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

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

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

Pet Peeves

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

TO CONCLUDE

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

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

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

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

Naman Mukerji Hire

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 8:13 AM CDT

I am a fourth year PF debater (senior) and team captain at Ravenwood High School located in Brentwood, TN. I have been part of a top 15 partnership in the nation, broken at big nat-circs like UK, BK, UMich, etc., and have qualled to Gold TOC with four bids. I also mentor students as nationally renowned summer camps and teach local middle school debaters about PF.
I'm pretty flay for the most part but lean to tech. By that what I mean is I do have a moderate threshold for evaluation, but if a decent arg is conceded throughout the round and the other team does a good job of explaining why it's the voter then I'll vote on the dropped argument. That being said please don't expect me to vote on increasing the number of waffles sold links to nuclear war. I still think clear warranting and reasoning wins rounds. As debaters it's your job to tell me why you won the round, so make it easy for me. And try to be interactive. I end up normally preferring the side which actually creates new frontlines or rebuttals to arguments over circulating the same thing.
While I prefer reasoning, evidence ethics are important. I always prefer more credible and well cut evidence, but if the opposition has the better argument and you're saying something non-interactive idrc that your evidence is from Harvard in 2023. Still, if you lie about your evidence that's a heavy blow to your ethos and will be taken into account. I wouldn't use evidence as a weighing mechanism unless it's a really contested or important piece of evidence, but you can still definitely indict and compare evidence.
Please be organized. I prefer off-time road maps a lot and signposting is key. I need to get what you're saying on my flow or I can't evaluate it. Same goes for speed- ideally 200 wpm and maximum 250 wpm at which point I may not be flowing everything so give me a speech doc at the very least if you pursue that.
You know this but weighing wins rounds. When I have two arguments that have been collapsed on you need to tell me why yours is where I should be voting. I really prefer interactive weighing like pre-reqs over "we save 2,000 lives they only save 1,000". Still if you have nothing at least give me simple weighing like magnitude or probability. I also enjoy frameworks, but don't be abusive and introduce SV at the bottom of second summary. If you effectively introduce a framework I'll default to the interpretation.
I don't love Prog in PF, but I will evaluate it if it goes absolutely conceded. I wouldn't run a K or Theory unless it's stellar, and still by threshold for responding to Prog is low, and I will normally prefer the topical argument.
For specific speeches, I like if you weigh asap, but you must in 2nd rebuttal frontline, in summary frontline, rebutt, extend, and weigh, and in final focus discuss the voters and give me the big picture.
I don't flow CX like most, but I do consider it lightly and take notes of it for speaker points. Please speak loudly and clearly to make my flowing easier.
Your speaker points will range from 26.0-30.0 with an average of roughly 28.5, but I normally give out good speaks.
I kinda typed this out in a hurry, so if you have any questions email me at: naman.mukerji1234@gmail.com. Also send me any docs here (I do prefer to have case docs sent to me before the round), and add me to the evidence chain there (I prefer a shared Google Doc over email since it's a lot better).
Lastly, be nice, nothing hateful or I'll drop you, and have fun (or at least however much fun you can arguing about an essay you wrote on some random topic).

Joseph Nahas Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:03 AM PDT

Call me Joseph instead of "judge", it's cringey and I have a name

Paradigms I agree with: Bryce Pitrowski, Alec Boulton, and John Nahas.

TLDR: Tech > Truth

I will vote on ANY argument, I just need to understand it

Don't make me intervene PLSSS

Debate is a game and HAVE FUN!

Feel free to ask paradigm questions beforehand :)

General:

Do not extend through ink, if its in final, it must be in summary

Defense is NOT sticky, ie: extend defense in 1st summary even if its conceded in 2nd rebuttal (If conceded defense is blippily extended in summary, that's fine)

Extend the entirety of an argument. I am not a huge stickler for extensions, but if they concede a part of your argument, you still gotta re-explain the warrant when extending. You DO NOT have to extend every author name, although it helps if its an important piece of evidence that your opp's dropped. I DO need to hear warrants.

** WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH ** (Important)

UNLESS you are absolutely and unequivocally winning the flow, comparative analysis will give you the edge in a close round. It is not my job to intervene, but if there are a bunch of equally clean arguments on the flow without any comparative, then I am forced too, which nobody wants a judge to do. Your job is to write my RFD for me, to paint a clear picture, and weighing is the easiest way to do that. If you want to make my job easy, and win my ballot, I suggest you make GOOD link comparison or weighing, please DO NOT just throw in words like "scope" or "strength of link" without an actual reason your argument comes first.

Speed: Just please send a doc if you will not be completely coherent, PLEASE BE COHERENT THO. Rule of thump: send doc if speed>250 wpm just to be completely safe. Also, 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 :)

Overviews/DA's: I am cool with you reading a DA or overview in rebuttal that implicates to your opp's case args, but PLEASE DO NOT read another contention, or completely unrelated DA in rebuttal, I personally believe that is abusive.

CX: Cross is hella underrated, leverage concessions, but for the most part, I probably won't attentively listen.

Progressive:

Theory: Theory is valid if there is abuse, and if you wanna read some frivolous stuff for giggles, I'm fine with that too, just run it at your own risk. I default too text>spirit and RVI>no RVI unless told otherwise. I will always default to competing interps>reasonability. I am not the biggest fan of theory, but I high-key think paraphrasing is too OP.

K's: I am not great at evaluating K's, but if you wanna run a K with me, cool. Just please explain stuff clearly, and we should be good.

Speaks: 3 things you can do to get good speaks, A. Reading off of cut cards and sending docs before speech B. Explaining everything clearly and coherently C. Make a reference that makes me giggle.

*Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with the decision*

Olayinka Oderanti Hire

Sam Oh Hire

Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar Hire

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 4:02 PM CDT

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

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

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

Tech > Truth.

How I evaluate the round:

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

General:

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

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

Speech-by-Speech:

Case:

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

Rebuttal:

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

Summary & Final Focus:

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

Progressive Argumentation:

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

Speaker Points:

30: All Turns in Constructive

30: Turning in Chair when Reading a Turn

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

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

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

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

Ivan N Shah Hire

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 12:56 AM PDT

TL:DR

pf Gtoc 3X, Did Nat circ PF for 4 years from Dougherty Valley. tab stalk if you want

Stuff:

Warrant

Keep round fast, Send docs w/card before every speech

Be sassy in cross

Weigh

Comparative weighing

If there's no Comparative weighing I vote on the path of least resistance (Strength of link)

Signpost do it but keep roadmaps short

Speed is totally fine, ill clear you if its too muddled

Prog is fine - k, theory, etc

I lowk like tricks

presumption warrants - default first>neg>whoever had shorter speeches?

If they have no path to the ballot save everyone time and TKO them in speech (ill give you 30s)

Dont skip Grand, make it fun

EV. Challenges - eh I'm salty from personal reasons but ill do them if its a valid tko

Long Boy

About Me:

Pronouns: He/Him

Senior At DV And Frequently Debated In Varsity Public Forum And Impromptu. I've Been Doing PF For Over 5 Years, I Have 14 Bids - 9 Gold(Tab-Stalk Me If You Want, GTOC 3X, Cal States 2X, Nats, Champ LCC, Jack Howe, Cal RR Semis Etc)And Have Done Impromptu For 4 Years (Not Successful Because I Get 1st Prelim Seed And Then Talk About 3-Idiots In Finals To Get Dead Last)

PF:

Label Email Chains Adequately. Ex. "Cal RR R3 F1 Email Chain Dougherty Valley DS V. Fairmont Prep SS."

Please Have Pre-Flows Done Before The Round For The Sake Of Time. Don't Be Late. 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'm More Than Happy To Evaluate Anything You Run, So Do What You Do Best And Own It!

Tabula Rasa - Tech/Truth, I Like To See Clash And Please WEIGH, That Lets Me Know What To Vote On In The Round. Collapsing/Crystalizing Is Essential, Don't Go For Every Single Argument On The Flow.

I Am Fully Experienced In Whatever The Current Topic Is Cause I Compete Frequently. If you read a definition of the word USFG or smt imma lose it.

Cross: I'll Listen, But I Won't Weigh Arguments Made In Crossfire Unless You Restate Your Points In A Speech. This Doesn't Mean You Should Ask Bad Questions, Make Sure They Are Smart And Strategic.

Rebuttal: Read As Much Offense/DAs As You Want, Just Please Implicate Them The Line-By-Line And Weigh Them. The Second Rebuttal MUST Frontline Terminal Defense And Turns, Probably All Defense Too. Check OutThis VideoFor Some Help.

Evidence: I Am Fine With Exchanging Evidence Through An Email Chain But Please Don't Ask For Too Much Evidence And Steal Prep, I Will Dock Of Speaks. Also If A Team Takes More Than 2 Mins For A Card Either Its Striked From The Round Or You Need To Take Prep To Pull It Up.

I Will Only Look At Evidence If I Am Deliberately Asked To In A Speech, It Seems Too Good To Be True, Or There Is A Massive Clash Over It.

Summary: First Summary Only Needs To Extend Turns But Should Also Extend Terminal Defense If You Have Time. I’d Prefer For The Second Summary To Extend As Much Defense As Possible With Author Names.

Please WatchThis VideoIf You Have The Time.This OneIs Also Good If You Only Have Ten Mins.

Final Focus: The First Final Can Do New Weighing But No New Implications Of Turns, Or Anything Else UNLESS Responding To New Implications Or Turns From The Second Summary. The Second Final Cannot Do New Weighing Or New Implications. The Final Focus Is A Really Good Time To Slow Down, Treat Me Like A Flay Judge In These Speeches And My Decision Becomes A Lot Easier.

Prog Debate: Theory>K>=Case. I'll Evaluate Ks AndTheoryI Have Experience WithProgressive ArgsAnd I Enjoy Listening To Prog Rounds Over Substance Ones. Check Out ThisYoutube PlaylistIn Your Off-Time If You Want. Also, Look At ThisTheory Demo Debate Round. Ive listned to some of the best K debates on the circuit but don't get discouraged. I hate judges who say they want perfect K debates. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Speaks: I Am Comfortable With Almost All Speaking Styles And Speeds But Make Sure To Give A Speech Doc If You Are Going To Spread. (For Online): If I Can't Hear You Or You Are Muted I Will Unmute And Yell "Clear" Up To 2 Times. If The Problem Persists I Will Stop Flowing And Tank Speaks.

Other Things I Dock Speaks Off For:

- Going 10 Seconds Over Time

- Reading A Theory That You Violate

If Nothing Is Done From This List Then You Can Expect A Very High Speaks Count For All The Debaters. 99% Of The Time I Give Above A 29.3 Just Cause I Can :)

Other Stuff I Like:

- Have A Little Fun In Cross, Don't Be Too Uptight

- Make Me Laugh

- Metweighing (ComparativeWeighing)

- Signposting

- Brief Roadmaps (if the roadmap is more than 5 seconds its times gotta start)

- Unique Weighing As Soon As Possible

- Summary/FF Parallelism

Decision: I Will Provide Oral Decisions After Round Most Of The Time. (Depends On Tournament Specific Regulations). If I Give An Oral Disclosure, There Won't Be Much On My Online RFD. Post-Round All You Want, I Enjoy It But I Won't Change My Decision Unless I Pressed The Wrong Button On Tab.

I don't provide my email for safety reasons. I'll give it in round

Hidden section

For 30 speaks:

Coffee - Caramel Macchiato

Subway (Italian Herb and Cheese, Veggie Delight, American Cheese, Toasted, Lettuce, Tomatoes, Black Olives, Onion, Salt & Pepper, Ranch, Garlic Aoli on Half, pick another sauce for the other side)

Margarita Pizza

Taco Bell (Supreme Crunch Wrap Veggie - w/ +seasoned rice, onion, cheese jalapeno sauce)

Chipotle Order - 3 Soft tacos, white rice, black beans, mild salsa, cheese, guac, lettuce & corn

In & Out - Grilled Cheese w/ onion

Anything else veg

Jay Shapiro Hire

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 9:15 AM CDT

Senior at Edina.

I learned debate primarily from Alec Boulton, Charlie Jackson, and people I've prepped with (Ishan Dubey, Ilan Ben-Avi, Sabrina Huang, Will Pirone, Sully Mrkva). I'll judge relatively similarly to how they do with a few changes that are bolded in my paradigm.

I'm pretty facially expressive while I judge, reading into expressions is probably a good idea.

Judge instruction is very, very helpful and underutilized. Tell me how to evaluate the round: ballot directive language, thresholds I should establish, when and/or whether I should grant new arguments, if I should err one side or another, gut-checks when appropriate, how I filter what is about to be said, etc.

I will presume for the team that annoys me less

i won't flow off of a doc, speed annoys me

LARP

tech>truth

collapse

uniqueness>>>>>link

extensions just have to exist. a singular run-on sentence explaining uq/link/impact is sufficient so long as it is frontlined. I'm especially lenient on extensions toward conceded arguments.

i expect all docs with evidence to be sent in an email chain before the speech. i don't want to read your evidence, nor do I want to steal it, nor will I flow off of a doc, but evidence exchange without docs is so unnecessary and takes so long. debaters who meet this expectation are much more likely to receive the ballot.

Theory

speech times are set, other than that you can do whatever you want.

no need to extend until summary. short extensions are sufficient.

obnoxiousness is a voter.

commit to the bit

make sure you understand what you are saying. it's obvious when you are just reading off backfiles or if one partner knows the lit but the other doesn't.

while I hope to remain impartial as a judge, discriminatory literature/behavior is something that I will actively discourage with speaker points and ballots, regardless of in-round argumentation

tricks

if you want to ig

cross

be nice

justifiable anger is alright

if you are asked a yes or no question, give a yes or no answer

i am so willing to vote on cross behavior.

misc

competitors can post-round as much as they want (i refuse to be post-rounded by coaches)

pf rounds should be open for specs -- i'm not letting anyone kick them out

speaks

if you want good speaks, make sure the round happens quickly and efficiently

everything else in this section was removed under new paradigm approval rules :(

Zachary Sinha Hire

Sadie Slobin Hire

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 8:51 AM CDT

Edina PF '25

tech > truth

send docs to sadie.slobin@gmail.com

ask me questions before the round!

for novice:

I need to see clear extensions after 2nd rebuttal, and weighing as early as possible. I really hate intervening and I feel like novices in general are too shy with language directly at the judge. Tell me where and in what order I should sign my ballot.

I'll vote on any argument as long as it's not bigoted, although I probably want a framework for something like climate change good, because I (and everyone in PF) assume utilitarianism.

WEIGH: literally any mechanism works, and weighing should be 1) warranted, and 2) comparative. Honestly in novice if you extend an argument and then weigh it I'll probably vote for you.

I'm fine with postrounding but it won't change my ballot at all.

PLEASE do an offtime roadmap. It doesn't need to be long, just a "the order will be neg, aff, underview" or something.

I'll disclose unless the tournament directly tells me I shouldn't.

Quality analytics are WAY better than bad evidence. "They don't read evidence" for something that's obvious or common knowledge is not a valid response.

i'm probably not judging varsity, but just in case:

Speed is fine as long as you send docs. I typically think speed is a net positive to the round, but if it seems like you're just trying to confuse your opponents rather than actually get in more information, I'll probably tank your speaks.

I'm somewhat familiar with theory but if its really obscure/frivolous don't count on me to vote as you expect. Similar with Ks -- explain your offense very clearly. Actually unless it's a really simple performance or common K, do not run it in front of me.

+ speaks for:

sending case and rebuttal docs promptly before the speech
unique WARRANTED case turns
catchy clinchers/closing language (bonus if funny)
any joke that's not corny - up to your discretion

-- speaks for:

reading evidence in cross (ask your partner to send it over!)
being rude for no reason - there's always a way to be courteous in cross
incomplete/nonexistent cites
lying about evidence (this happens way too often)

Anne Smith Hire

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 12:23 PM PDT

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

Farhan Sodiq Hire

Hanming Sun Hire

Aaron Tian Hire

William Trinh Hire

Last changed on Wed May 1, 2024 at 12:33 PM PDT

Hey y'all! I'm Will (he/him) and I primarily did LD on the National Circuit. Qualified to the TOC my senior year reading every argument under the sun. This does not matter though.

Speechdrop is easier but I prefer email chain.

Email: trinhwilliam258@gmail.com

Shortened this cause yapping is silly but if you wanna see my weird takes here's this document.

This paradigm will only include stuff for prefs/weird defaults I have that can all be reversed in two seconds.

I am a slightly more fascist but less grumpy version of Holden Bukowsky so you can pref me where you would pref them but lower cause I'm young.

The prefs below don't represent my particular liking for arguments but rather my ability to comfortably evaluate them.

Clipping tags and analytics have not been, are not, and will never be a thing. If your opponent cannot flow, they should lose. If your judge also cannot flow, you should strike them. Saying the words 'clipping tags' will result in a reverse postround.

I will flow on my laptop and mostly by ear. I will only look at the speech doc to see if you are clipping (though I will not call out clipping unless it is patently egregious).

The above comment is in response to the shockingly terrible state of flowing and evidence ethics in our activity. If you ask for a marked doc before running CX/Prep and the speech marked less than 3 cards, I am capping your speaks at a 29. This does not apply if you take prep or CX to ask for a marked doc or wait until CX is over for the marked doc. That is perfectly fine.

LD Prefs:

1: Policy or Kritikal Arguments. T (of all types) Straight up Phil. Clash rounds

3-4: Tricky Phil (Determinism is not tricky).

4-5: Dense Theory Shells/Trix

I don't know if this means anything, but some of my friends in Debate I share varying levels of takes with include Albert Cai, Aiden Kim, and Iva Liu.

TLDR:

I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. This paradigm is more so to let you know what my understanding of arguments may be or what predispositions I might have, but I promise I will do my best to check them at the door. If your best 2AR is on trivialism, do it (just highlight the Kabay 08 card more smh).

The statement below is stolen from Lizzie Su.

That being said, I will only vote on ARGUMENTs. That is claims with warrants. I have no problem voting on some absurd arguments in debate such as skep or must disclose round reports but you cannot extend a shell hidden in the 1AC for 6 seconds like no neg fiat and expect to win.

Non negotiable

Claims I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them. (Many stolen from Alice Waters)

Evaluate/Adjudicate (you get the idea) after the 1AC/1NC.

Ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)

Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) (No you can still read heg good vs Indentity affs...) The round will end.

Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. (NO YOU CAN NOT GO FOR NO 2NR I MEETS).

Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.

Misc: All of this can be changed with one word. Debate it out.

"K debaters cheat. Policy debaters lie. If you believe both these statements to be true pref me in the 1-25th percentile."

Offense/Defense Good.

Competing Interps, DTA, No RVI

Permissibility and Presumption Negate

Comparative Worlds

Epistemic Confidence

Logic outweighs

TJFs are questionable but winnable.

Insert rehighlighting for CP solvency advocates/defense. Read for everything else. If it's a different part of the article, read it.

By insert rehiglighting, you must explain in the speech you insert it what you are trying to assert... i.e you must say "X piece of evidence concludes (insert fact) Insert!" You cannot do "X concludes neg. Insert!" The former is evidence comparison. The other is stupidity.

Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.

Sunny Vakkalanka Hire

Kierra Wang Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:40 AM PDT

Hey y’all!

I'm Kierra Wang, and I primarily compete in varsity PF for Davidson Academy Online. I've seen / participated in a few other debate types, but have more limited knowledge in them. Overall, this is what I'm looking for:

Be respectful to your opponents throughout the round (this should go without saying).
Please be in the room at least 15 minutes before the round starts. I want to get ev sharing + introductions squared away before start time so I have time to give an RFD!

Include me in your email chain: kierrawang29@gmail.com. I won't really look at your cards unless the debate hinges upon an evidence comparison.

General

I’m a flow judge, but I weigh Tech > Truth. Spell it out for me! As a judge, it's my job to listen. Make the ballot really clear for me, and explain exactly why your side should win.

I’m not great with speed, so if you’re going over 200 wpm I would like a speech doc. If I can’t hear it, then I can’t flow it.

Send evidence quickly. You should have your cards cut and ready.

Keep track of your own time. I won’t be timing you (unless you're competing in novice). Please don't try to time-steal for prep. If I feel like there’s something fishy going on, that will be reflected in the decision and/or your speaks.

I love good warranting! Although evidence is super important, I will prefer the side that explains exactly why their case is better in-round over the side that just throws evidence at me. You have to understand your links.

Public Forum

I want to see clash throughout speeches.

Make sure to frontline in second rebuttal.

I don’t flow during cross. Anything important should be brought up in following speeches.

Extending is absolutely necessary. I want to hear an extension through every speech. This can just be a summary of key links / important cards + impact.

Don't spread or run prog against novices (unless they spread/run prog). It will be an auto L.

I <3 frameworks, signposting, off-time roadmaps, good evidence, and WEIGHING!

Please try to signpost (key definitions, args, etc.) to the best of your abilities throughout speeches.

Spell out the ballot for me! Why are your definitions or examples better? What did the opp(s) drop and why is that good for you? Why do you win the round?

Parli

Not super experienced with parli, but I understand the rules and order. Spell out your arguments to me accordingly. Treat me like a lay judge!

I want there to be room for clash. Prop should keep this in mind, and Opp should respond accordingly. Don’t bicker about loosely related tangents because it’ll be a lot harder for me to vote on anything.

Theory / Ks

I don't like theory or Ks, mostly because I'm not super familiar with them, but if you really really want to run one then go ahead. This is your warning, though, that I will be infinitely worse at evaluating any sort of prog compared to trad debate.

I'm alright with IVIs within reason.

Speaks / Speaker Points

+0.5 for using a ridiculous analogy to describe the opposition’s case, e.g. a donut or sponge

+0.5 for saying “bae” or “OMG” in some speech throughout the round

-0.5 for asking me how much prep you have left — I already told you I don’t keep track

Good luck debaters!

Usho Watanabe Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:27 PM CST

Control C+V'd from Zayne El-Kaissi who influenced my style a lot.

I'm a rising junior, and competed as a part of Taipei American ChWa, here if it means anything to you

General:

For outreach: I'll evaluate Ks and Theory

Please call a TKO (Technical Knock Out) if your opponents have no routes to the ballot. If I agree that you are winning on everything, you get W30s, if you are wrong, you get L25s. Risk it for the biscuit?

warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded.the only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards. So make sure to implicate evidence well

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

I tend to like calmer debate styles, but debate however you feel comfortable

Case/Rebuttal:

slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument

Signposting rebuttal well is impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Sum/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it. So slow down for weirder arguments and be sure to explain things well.

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Pleeaaaaasssee weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round,if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details(ask before round if you have any specific questions):

I usually don't love examples (especially in case) unless they're used to break clash / prove a certain actor's incentive.

Theory is fine but not my favorite and I don't rly know how to evaluate it super well. Same with Ks. Progressive frameworks are fine though. Also framework should probably be in case, rebuttal is late for me to evaluate it.

If I need a speech doc, you're speaking too fast. Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

DAs are fine within reason

2nd rebuttal has to frontline, I'll only drop a team if called out though.

Misscut evidence will lower your speaker points, and if I think it's really bad I may drop you

Metaweighing can be good, just don't be too too silly. Also be creative with weighing and metaweighing in general

Second case never has to respond to first case. if you want to though, I guess go for it

faith zhao Hire

Login to Tabroom

4th Annual Freshman Deathmatch Tournament

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges