Debate

Klein Collins '24

I have been doing Speech and Debate for 6 years, I've competed in extemp, congress, oratory, informative, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and impromptu; however, I'm well versed in prose and poetry I have experience as a judge and will judge fairly and base ranks solely on performance in rounds.

Extemp:

Try to have an organized speech with a clear Line of Reasoning(LOR). I want to be able to understand what you say clearly. I understand that stuttering happens, so I won't hold it against you unless it's excessive and prevents me from understanding what you're talking about. Time is key, try to put as much in as you can without too much repetition and make sure to include sources with their dates, I appreciate at least 4 different sources and dates can be as simple as " January of 2023". Being confident is very important in rounds so be assertive when you speak. Also, make sure you're not trying to debate, be conversational and engage the audience, professionally of course.

Congress:

Sponsorship- Have a well-prepared speech that supports the affirmative side. Make me understand the docket and why I should agree with your side. Offer strong points and have relevant evidence to support your claim. Be clear with your arguments and set up the round for future speeches.

Speeches- Have a good LOR and bring new points along when possible. I appreciate clash when applicable because it gives you greater credibility. If you're able to prove someone else wrong, I suggest you take that chance because I do think that's the point of this debate. Although I appreciate clash, do not make that your whole speech, you need to offer some sort of new idea or evidence that hasn't been as emphasized.

Presiding Officer- I will be assessing how you handle time and address mistakes. Have a clear precedence and recency chart in whatever manner you prefer. Also, I like when the P.O. is effective and watches time well. Be confident in your role, make sure you are the one controlling the round, don't let the chamber run the round. You should also be well informed/ understand the procedures and times well.

Questioning- Questions should be respectful and not used just because you need speaker points. Make sure you have questions that you think could be beneficial to yourself/ your side in the round.

Precedence- I suggest you watch your precedence, make sure you don't waste it. Be strategic in how you choose to spend it; however, I won't dock you on it.

Oratory:

For oratory, I want to be able to enjoy the presentation. Humor is great, but if you don't have humor, that's fine. I like seeing students walk based on their points, and want to see a clear connection between your points and resolution. I understand it is tough to memorize such speeches; however, since this event is based on memorization, I will dock you if there is visible distress or pauses.

Impromptu

I understand the short prep time and therefore, don't have many problems with impromptu. Since it is a speech event, I want to be able to see your personality and understand your point of view and LOR.

Lincoln Douglas

Don't spread, but I appreciate speed.

Speech doc + make fun of me for using yahoo + postrounding virtually: abaner@berkeley.edu

I did LD back in high school (couple of state wins + T20 NSDA + T20 NCFL). I do NPDA at Cal now (won NPTE Nationals 2023 [carried by partner moment]). I coached James Logan LD last year.

TLDR

• Fine with any speed but if you're above 350 wpm please send a speech doc. Will shout clear/slow/loud if I need it.
• Willing to watch any debate y'all want to have. Idc what you run if you run it well.
• Powertagging is bad. Paraphrasing (cough cough pf) is nonideal. Evidence ethics is legit. I will do the whole autoloss + 20 speaker points thing if you stake the round on it.
• Speaks are probably sexist, classist, and or rascist. Read 30 speaks theory and I'll give both teams 30s.
• If the word ends with -ist and is bad, you shouldn't be it. Please. I will drop you and report you to tab. Also, please don't run afro-pess if you are nonblack. Zion, Joshua, and Quin do a wonderful job explaining why: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/#:~:text=In%20the%20words%20of%20Rashad,reduce%20Blackness%20to%20ontological%20nothingness.
• Weighing is nonnegotiable. Please. I have watched too many rounds withoutgood weighing. Please say one of the magic weighing words and then tell me why your mechanism is more important than your opponents/why you win under your mechansim. I default to SOL, then magnitude. But please please please weigh and metaweigh. Please.
• PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE COLLAPSE I BEG YOU
• Parli: I protect but just call the POO (obviously doesn't apply to other events). I barely know the high school norms are for POIs but ask away I guess.

Other TLDR things that I've collected over the years that are just preferences and don't change how I'll vote, but change my happiness in the round.

• Not a big fan of Nebel T :( I'll vote on it if you win it on the flow but like generally I'd much rather hear a debate about the substance of the aff plan vs you saying bare plurals + "this event being LD" means that the aff doesn't get the plan. Ideally, most sucessful debaters I've seen have read both and collapsed to whatever is cleaner

• I'd rather vote on substance than blips which means that if you have a choice to collapse to a 10 second line vs a 2 minute card out of your 1AR (or MG, or whatever the correct thing is for you're event), be strategic and go for what's the easiest out, but it'd make me happier if you went for the substance.

• The more I coach and read postmodernism, the less I think I understand it. Maybe I'm getting dumber, but I swear it made more sense when I ran it in high school.
• Stop saying gut check. I don't know what gut check means in the context of a flow round. If something is improbable, give me a warrant about why it's improbable.
• My favorite rounds to watch/judge K vs Case, Case v Case and K v K. This season Holden and I have changed our neg strat to be T + K + Disad, but prior to this year most of my rounds in college are a mixture of K v Theory or K v Case. This means nothing about what you should do, and everything about what I find interesting. Do what you feel comfortable with, and I will vibe.
• Saying try or die <<< doing smarter collapsing to something else

Case:

Is super cool!

• I like new + fun arguements. Read some crazy DA, go for the impact turn, make a hyper specific aff. Case is one of the places I feel like creativity shines through the most, and I love hearing cool case arguements.
• Link you impacts back to framework pls (for LD only)
• Linear disads are annoying! If you are going to run one you need to explain the link differential a lot more clearly.
• Chill with counterplans (pls stop saying "NSDA rules mean no counterplans" and respond fr). Condo (/dispo) is probably good but willing to listen to theory.
• Will listen to any CP (cheaty CPs, PICs, etc.) unless explicitly told they are bad by a theory sheet.
• I believe that the aff burden is to prove a) why the plan is desirable and b) is better than the cp. I will judge kick -- I don't thinking collapsing to a turn on the counterplan means that you prove the plan is desirable, especially if the neg is allowed multiple conditional counterplans (given the aff doesn't read T).
• Perms are tests of competitions please stop saying you added an advocacy lol
• Weighing is super important in case v case rounds. The sooner you pick a framing and tell me why you win, the easier evaluating the round is.

Kritiks:

I've run Buddhism, Althusser, Foucault, and MLM (not as much MLM as other cal teams) mainly. I mostly run Buddhism. I've coached Set Col and Deleuze.

• Down for anything but the longer the average word length of the author you're reading is, the slower you need to go if you want me to understand.
• If you're alt starts with "I/We already ruptured the debate space so vote for us for fun" pls stop making the author of your lit base turn in their grave (if they have passed) or contribute to their sadness (if they are alive)
• I think K-affs need to win (a?) topic harm(s?) to justify why they are k-ing out, and on the neg you need to win a link to the aff.
• Specific links >>>>> generic links.
• Frameouts are legit and underutilized.

THEORY TO K BRIDGE! In a K vs FW T round, don't just say 'a prori' or repeat your apriori tag as a reason for your arg to be layered first. I've had too many rounds where I have no clue who is apriori because the clash was just both debaters saying "we are a prorir"

Theory:

As a top note, chill on the friv T! I'd rather not have to vote on shoe specc or tropicality again :(

• Defaults: competing interps > reasonability, text > spirit, acc abuse > potential abuse, drop the arg > drop the debater. As with all defaults, feel free to win the arguement on the flow and my mind changes.
• In a vacuum, I like RVIs. I think if you do them and win why you get RVIs (assuming the other team says you shouldn't), I will happilly vote on them.
• Check your interps before you read them -- I've been in far too many rounds where people have read "text > spirit" and then have accidently used the wrong wiki name (it changed!) or had something else wrong with their text
• Big fan of bidirectional T that's set up well in flex!
• (Parli:) MG theory is chill. Anything after that probably not. I heard PMR theory was cracked tho.

Phil:

I read all type of phil in high school. I've read all the common LD authors before (Kant, Habermas, Rawles, Virtue Ethics, Land Ethics, etc...) and some niche ones like Levinas.

• If it took you 2+ reads to understand your card because of the writing style, I will not get it on first listen. Either a) send me your case (should already be disclosed) and b) slow down and c) add explinations in your own words frequently
• Phil frameouts are insane and a huge part of what makes phil LD tick. When you're weighing, go the extra step don't just tell me why you're arguements link -- tell me why your opponents don't.
• Don't be shifty in cross when explaining your author

That was long. Ask me questions preround if you need to or send me an email. Feel free to postround too.

ty Ozan for this poem:

"weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur"

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.

King Update:

Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for teams that don't send all case and rebuttal evidence before the speech

I debated for four years on the national circuit and now coach for Westlake

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: ilanbenavi10@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us

Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments

I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

Part III - Weighing

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go

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

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments

FW:

I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.

tjhsst, he/him, add me to the email chain: abennepal@gmail.com

IM FLAY

my paradigm is will sjostrom's &‎ eli glickman's but im REALLY BAD at evaluating anything prog

defense is not sticky

framing > metaweighing > weighing > cleanest arg > presumption (i presume best drip), but cleanest arg w/ contested weighing will probably always win

i follow rwang's framework for drip

I default to probability > everything else (and not really impact probability, more like strongest link)

SEND RHETORIC AND CARDS BEFORE CASE + REBUTTAL OR UR SPEAKS ARE CAPPED AT 27.5

anything -ist or -phobic gets u 0 speaks, sing the first 4 lines of freestyle by lil baby for 30 (song has to be playing in the background)

i love flex prep!!

any questions? ask in round or messenger (Aben Bhattachan)

Hi! I'm a high school speech & debate competitor who primarily does speech, but I've judged a fair amount of debate.

In general, as for pace, I'm not big on spreading, I won't dock you off for it or anything, but if I don't hear a point you say, that's on you.

When deciding my ballot, I'll look back at the whole debate flow and compare what arguments each teams win/lose on, weigh, and give my final opinion. Your speaking skills are much appreciated, but I won't count that into my decision much, unless it comes down to it.

One thing I'm not too fond of is when some debaters claim that some tech will exist in the future "because innovation", so if you want to say that innovation will cause technological development and thus helps solve for an issue, make sure to explain why/how that innovation will occur.

On another note, if you want to run any progressive debate arguments, like kritiks, go for it, just make sure to explain how it connects back to the debate at hand, weigh it, and don't base it off of one weak link chain.

**After judging a good amount of rounds, I've noticed while "I am a flow judge," I almost always find that slightly slower, cleanly spoken, and big picture debating is more persuasive. The big picture almost always will win my flow** Take that how you will when you evaluate how flow or flay I am.

I debated six years for Boston Latin School, primarily during the whole expansion of online debate and on the national circuit. I've also taught at several camps and coached a couple debaters. You can read anything you want.

Paradigm

I used to have a really long paradigm but I realized it doesn't have to be so complex. The most basic idea of debate in my mind is breaking clash and warranting arguments. That's it. Every strategy whether that is a K, a theory shell, 20 turns off rebuttal, and 5 contentions should all strategize to answer 3 fundamental questions at the end of the round: 1. Why is this argument the most important argument in the round? 2. Does the argument have strong warranting and evidence? 3. Is this argument frontlined well enough to vote on?

*The only thing that I think will be helpful to you is how do I actually evaluate debate rounds?*

1. I'm looking at the deeper question or clash in the round and who is winning this debate. What I mean by this is that you should identify the implicit central issue that both sides are getting at. If one team says that, "US diplomacy will fail because it is overstretched" and another team says that "US diplomacy is important because we need to stop threats." This debate should focus slightly on whether the US should fiat diplomacy or not. However, it definitely should contextualize how strong the United States is and answer who are our adversaries and can we over come them. The United States' strength is an implicit question to the entire resolution and clash at hand. This is why I say I vote on the big picture.

2. On a more technical level, I look at who controls the best weighed link into the best weighed impact. I'll think to myself, "What are the main couple of arguments by the end of this round." Once I have these arguments, I'll either look to see if there's weighing or framework for an argument and look there, or if an argument simply has too much defense to be voted for. This usually narrows the flow into one to two arguments that are the most important ones. From there, it's typically a question of who has the stronger link story, better weighed impact and link, or cleaner link to vote for response wise.

Recognizing that the world, and also debate, is far more complex than two sides is how you start to win my ballot. Understanding nuance and why those nuances matter makes a good debater a great one. Finally, leveraging ballot directive language is key to being a persuasive speaker. Yes, I'm flow but debate is fundamentally a persuasion based activity - Don't forget that.

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com.

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

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

PF:

TLDR: Hi I'm Dash! I'm a Junior debater for St. Luke's GG. I'm pretty laid-back so if you have preferences for how the round should run you can tell me. Tech over truth, tab, etc. Run whatever you like to run. if you have any questions please ask. I'm a good judge for progressive arguments. Add me to the chain @ gilrain-lennond25stlukesct.org

Non-negotiables:

Respect your opponents and their identities

Don't be cruel, offensive, or generally a bad person

Please for the love of god have cut cards

Overview:

Do what you do best, don't change your strategy to try to meet my prefs. My biggest preference is that you debate well so do your best at that

You should frontline a.) the arguments you want to go for and b.) turns/offense your opponent has in second rebuttal. You shouldn't be making new arguments in second summary

Speed: I'm fine with speed. Send a speech doc, if you're super unclear I might "clear" you

Signposting: Please organize your responses, I will do a way worse job flowing your speech if it takes me like 10 seconds just to figure out what you're responding to. Tell me where you are if you want good speaks

Weighing: Do it. Tell me what order to evaluate the offense in the round in, if teams agree on weighing mechanisms tell me why your link/impact is better comparatively.

Cross - I won't flow cross so if something is important bring it up in speech

Theory

Feel free to run, I feel comfortable evaluating it.

I have a strong preference for competing interps; "reasonability" is kinda silly.

K's

I like these in PF. Regardless of what K you read, make sure to explain your alt and role of the ballot as well as possible.

in K v. T rounds both teams should make an effort to explain and contextualize why their model of debate is preferable.

If you want more specific thoughts check out my coach David Levin's Paradigm

Judging stuff:

I give what I think are slightly above-average speaks

Your off-time roadmap should tell me where you start, and if you're reading anything off-case

I disclose, if you have any questions please feel free to ask

you can postround me if you want

High speaks for Good signposting, speech docs, and disclosure, a good strategic collapse, being funny, Comparative weighing, A well-used framework

Low Speaks forPrep stealing, paraphrasing, taking forever to send evidence (can be avoided by sending speech docs, just saying), Extending 10,000 pieces of offense without telling me how to evaluate them.

Rankings:

Good ev good warrant > Bad ev good warrant > Good ev bad warrant > bad response

Coffee > Monster > Red Bull> Other energy drink

Cool People

- Samantha Gerber

My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.

I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.

I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.

Just be clear and loud

My paradigm got deleted by accident but here's a short version

I've done PF for a couple years now under Monta Vista TG and did decently. I have also dabbled in other events like extemp, impromptu, and OO. For most other events, I generally understand the structure and stuff (but if its other debate events probably just treat me like a trad flow).

Generally:

LARP/Theory > Ks (topical or not) >>>>> High Theory, Phil, Tricks etc.

Evidence: If you are in varsity I expect all evidence being read in the next speech to be sent in the email chain or speech drop or whatever the method yall decide is (please add my emailsaanvig2006@gmail.com). Evidence ethics are big for me, so if you notice an evidence violation it would likely be in your interest to call an ev challenge.

Speed: PFs version of "spreading" is fine. I probably won't be able to flow 275+ well though.

Speech Logistics: Second rebuttal needs to frontline everything they want to go for + any turns. Weighing should to start in summary. Please extend things properly and implicate them, I'd rather you go for one really well explained and backlined response than 5 that I don't know how to evaluate.

Prog: I'm comfortable with whatever policy positions you want to read as long as you have the warrants/cards to back it up. I'm fairly comfortable with and enjoy theory debate (altho I dislike friv theory, it won't affect how I evaluate the round). I have some working knowledge of kritiks and have read them before but I am not the most experienced in that domain. I despise tricks and to be honest don't understand most phil things.

Framing/Weighing: I think framing and stuff should be read latest second rebuttal (altho i'd prefer it just be read form constructive). Don't use weighing to be putting new defense on people's arguments in the backhalf (ie saying we outweigh on probability cuz mad when you never mentioned it before).

lay parent judge, speak clearly

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!

Background: Did PF on the circuit for 2 years

TLDR: Read the bolded + Tech over Truth

I'm not sure why, but there has been an astonishing deterioration in PF speech quality over the past couple of years. And, to that end, I'm restructuring my paradigm to being built on the conditions in which I will default neg and everyone gets the lowest speaks:

1) Ghost, shadow, or incomplete extensions by the aff.

2) No terminal impact on the aff.

3) Incomplete case construction by the aff, missing internal links, warrants, and/or terminal impacts on the argument you go for.

4) No weighing done to tell me which arguments matter more, because if I get to choose myself, I'll pick the neg arguments.

5) No offense on either side.

Outside of that, if the round is actually executed on properly, here are my preferences:

• Speed:compared to most, I'm one of the relatively faster debaters on the circuit when I compete, and in hindsight feel bad for every single judge that had to flow me. To avoid feeling you feeling bad for me, and me for myself while I judge you, keep things<260 wpm or else I'll probably be gone
• Summary and FF must mirror one another (for the most part)– I'll hesitantly accept new weighing in 1FF, but if you can't get some weighing out in the 3 minutes of first summary, the foundation is set for you to lose. I also don't want a complete strat switch coming out of gcx, stay consistent.
• Explanations are only as good as their first iteration. To clarify, 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. Impacts can be added on your turns in summary, warrants can not.

• Other Paradigms I agree with include: Rohun Gupta, Ryan Gumlia, Martand Bhagavatula

Extemp:

I am a content-oriented judge that focuses on the flow of logic throughout the speech. Delivery should mainly serve as a means of communication, otherwise, its a secondary concern. Sources need to be strong and correctly summarized. Rhetoric is extremely important and I appreciate impacts that quantified or explained in a specific and tangible way. In terms of delivery, I believe it should be there in auxiliary to emphasis points, but the main goal in giving a speech is clarity. Less gestures and basic delivery that is clear is better than overdoing it or being messy--it's distracting and makes it harder to follow the speech. What really stands out to me in terms of delivery is emotion; Extempers don't use it enough. Extemp is about telling a narrative, almost like a story, and that requires emotions too: in the tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.

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.'

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

background: Hebron debate 2014-2017 (PF, Congress, speech events)

PF Paradigm 2023

Strong preference for quality of argument over speed/trying to get in a bunch of info in your short time limits. speaking fast is fine - I can flow most levels of speed as long as you do not spread too much. Please use credible evidence with dates. Recency of evidence is important.

NOTE FOR NSDA LAST CHANCE:

I am particularly tired this week! Normally I have no problem at all with speed, but there is a nonzero chance that I ask for you to speak at a lay pace for your round. This is not an invitation for you to paraphrase, not send carded evidence, etc, nor does it mean I'll flow/evaluate the debate any differently. only that my poor little brain might not be able to handle quick delivery. That said, I want to have fun. I'd give my right arm to hear spark or some other outrageous impact turns at lay speed, so go nuts (slowly)!

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

----------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for Kritiks. i'm a pretty good judge for theory. this format has so much potential for innovation - don't be afraid to try something different/new.

General:

"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt-of-the-earth "substance" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. I'm not here to tell you what you can't run (outside of oppressive/exclusionary arguments). It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I likethis article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.

DO NOT send a "locked" document to me or your opponents. This is a competitive equity AND academic integrity concern.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.

I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).

I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.

I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.

If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.

Crossfire is binding.

Speaker Points:

I average around a 28.7 for varsity rounds. For a well-executed technical debate, expect something in the 28.8-29.4 realm. Above a 29.5 is reserved for performances that "stick to the ribs", demonstrating both technical mastery and rhetorical salience. Remember that debate is largely a practice in storytelling.

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.

Topical "critical" Cases:

Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.

Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?

Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.

These rounds are where I can offer my most helpful feedback, whether you're running a K or debating against one.

Non-topical criticisms:

Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.

Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.

Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.

"Off-case" Criticisms:

I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.

If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality:

I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).

I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.

T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory:

Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.

"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.

I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks".

Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are an ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.

I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.

Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy:

I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your internals.

I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. That said, policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just ask.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln-Douglas:

Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

tech after lunch (bring me food for speaks boost)

你好，我是 alex（他/他），卡里学院 2025 届毕业生

如果您在回合前有任何问题，我很乐意回答

把我放在电子邮件链上：aldaman636@gmail.com，尽量不要花超过一分钟的时间来寻找你的证据，一旦事情变得令人震惊，我很可能会开始进行你的准备工作

技术 > 真相，发送文档 >200 WPM，清楚

确保你扩展了所有的参数（uq、链接、内部链接、影响）并请权衡（如果你是新手，我会给你更多的余地）

运行 prog 需要您自担风险

推定缺席犯罪或其他推定依据

我的评分很高，最低的评分大概是28，除非你做了一些坏事（种族主义、性别歧视、-主义），在这种情况下你会被insta-dropped

如果允许的话，我会在回合结束后披露并提供反馈，请随意进行回合结束，但要保持冷静

hey, i’m alex (he/him), class of 2025 at Cary Academy

if you have any questions ask prior to the round ill be happy to answer them

put me on the email chain: aldaman636@gmail.com and try not to spend more than a minute looking for your evidence, if it gets egregious ill dock speaks

tech > truth , send speech doc > 200 wpm, be clear

make sure you extend everything (uq, links, internal links, impact) and please weigh (if ur a novice, ill give you more leeway)

run prog at your own risk

presume neg absent other offense

speaks should be pretty high, floor is probably 28, unless you do something bad (racist, sexist, -ism) in which case you'll be insta-dropped

ill disclose and provide feedback after the round if allowed, feel free to postround but be chill

=============================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!

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.

1. 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 :(. )
2. 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)
3. If you turn in your chair or standing up when ur reading a turn
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Making jokes in cross (auto 28.5). 27 if they're corny tho.
7. 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.
8. Don't steal prep(minus the ev exchanges thing).
9. 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?

Inesh Nambiar (he/him) GWU '27

inesh1715@gmail.com add me on linkedin

Bold = tldr, Comic Sans = contextual info

speed is fine send doc or speak clear

don't get canceled anywhere near my round I hate paperwork and exclusion

tabula rasa!! (i.e. "nuke war good" uncontested = truth)

troll args get 30s lmfao, offensive args = L obvi

flexprep & give me a good ff

tagteam cross idc u hv choice in strat

chill w offcase don't spread I’ll throw my pen and scream. actually convince me if u rly wanna lol

On Ks: never evaluated non-t Ks. Explain it like the stupid beta cuck little pf debater I am (go slow, RoB, framing, etc) pls & tysm

gl hv fun

!!! CALL ME OUT IF I HARM/DISCOMFORT YOU!! I WILL NVR BE MAD. I IMPLORE U TO CRITIQUE ME bc I'm learning too !!!

Not as strict as Jouya but agree w a good amount of his philo (i.e. you prob won't lose the round bc you say "delink" but pls cut cards/disclose)

AddjpotooleDB@gmail.comfor docs/chains

Did 4 years of PF at Newsome (‘23)

If you don’t know some of the terms I use in the paradigm, don’t be afraid to ask

If both teams agree, you can change anything in my paradigm for the round (This includes lay vs flow, tech vs truth, weighing preferences, speaker points, how I evaluate prog, and any other nuances in debate). Just let me know before round starts

PF

I’m going to default to being flow because thats the type of round I would want to judge. Refer to the section above if you want me to be lay or tech.

Flow Paradigm

As a flow judge I’m going to be voting off of the line by line, but won’t give technical losses like not extending all Defense is sticky. Collapse please. Bring up your voters in both summary and final.

Weigh & Meta Weigh. I firmly believe that meta weighing is the easiest way to the ballot, and quite often the team that gives the best meta-weighing will win. Emphasize this heavily in FF. I default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity

Mavericks get 6 mins prep

Speaker Points: I'll make the round 29-28 in most cases. If I feel the round is messy it will be 28-27, super close will be 30-29, and a mismatch 30-28. Say “Time will start on my second word” to let me know you’ve read all of this so far (You’ll get a boost in speaks). Also + speaks if you disclose on the wiki.

I won’t flow cross but I’ll pay attention to what is said. If the round is an absolute toss up to me I will vote based on who I thought looked stronger in cross. Treat cross more for the performance aspect of debate rather than the argumentation. If you feel you won a point in cross, tell me in a speech.

Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. I will not flow anything said over time, so keep this in mind

Everything under this is specifically if teams decide they want me as a tech judge

Speeches

2nd Rebuttal should always frontline & I won’t accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. This threshold is low, though- as long as you can briefly mention your response you can expand upon it in

Summary Stuff: Its ok with me if you don’t want to read out all if the cards word for word you use in case that you want to extend. Just say “Extend our C2, specifically Depetries 21 and Velasco 13.” I only prefer this for the sake of spending more time on the clash of responses rather than just restating them. I personally don’t require weighing in summary, but it wouldn’t hurt you to do so. Weighing in 1st summary should be responded to in 2nd summary. Any arg not extended in summary can’t be used in FF.

FF I expect the same from both teams, simply tell me why you won and they lost. Heavily lean into weighing. If no meta weighing happens, I'll default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity. As long as you give even a little meta weighing I’ll buy into it until the other team responds.

Ask your opponents before you spread. I can personally handle 300ish wpm but if you are going 250+ send a doc.

Prog Stuff

Kritiks: You might need to explain them to me like I am 5 depending on the complexity. I’ll be able to follow the more common stuff like cap and neocol, but anything beyond that I likely won’t know much about. As long as you explain the literature clearly you should be ok with me.

Theory: I'm familiar with how to evaluate it. If there is a legitimate violation, read it the speech after the violation has occured. I default to competing interps but can be told otherwise. Also, don’t read anything on round reports.

LARP/Trix: Don't know anything about it, try it if you want but I have 0 experience

MOST IMPORTANT PART: If you run some funny case/theory, you will likely lose the round, but will receive 30 speaks, I will ask you to sign my flow, and you will be entered in the paradigm Hall of Fame.

Hall of Fame

x

x

x

x

x

For me, Speaking is a hobby and I love listening to various speeches too. I’m a flat judge with experience in judging PF, LD and a few other speech events. He/Him pronouns.

Hi friends:) plz add me to the email chain if there is one @drpham1126@gmail.com

My name is Doanh Pham, but I go by Rita (she/her). Currently debating policy at University of Kansas as a 2nd year. I'm currently a double major in Political Science and East Asian Studies with a concentration in Chinese. Highschool history wise, I debated PF and did IX at Lee's Summit West Highschool for 4 years there. Was decent, was state champ and did the NSDA jazz, you can look me up at Rita Pham on NSDA. PF is my first love!

Don't be a-holes to each other. I'm a firm believer that debate is about education and pedagogy.

No matter what event, framing then tech into truth plz. Judge direction is important, you should tell me from the beginning how I should evaluate the round/on what framework. FRAMING IS TOP LEVEL. Identity politics and structural violence works well with me over extinction/econ impacts. Also evidence quality is so important to me, I will read it if you highlight its important. Below you can see events spec thoughts:

Policy: I love high theory and critical things. any flavors of Ks are welcomed and if I don't know then I'll try to keep up actively. Some of my fav is Set Col, Cap, Asian Identity/Orentialism, Academy.... I think alt is important but if you don't have one, prove to me why your link makes their aff net worse. Im very good judge for identity politics.

Stuff like wipe out and pess/death good, eh idk how I feel about it but I don't particularly love.

K aff are cool, I'm running one for the 2023-2024 season myself - but try to have it tie the resolution somehow. I'm pretty good on the FW debate, impacts like education is more convincing then fairness for the sake of fairness. This means that I'm pretty ok with seeing how the T flow interacts with K affs if that's your thing!

I am ok at policy stuff (don't run more then 4 off as a policy strat, I will be very annoyed and the args start to lose quality), T-subsets and etcs arent my thing but I will still flow. A good DA with a strong link story is always good. Extinction impacts are overrated but I will always vote on what you tell me to vote on.

Don't love PIX/PICS and stuff that steals opponents' args but justify yourself.

I usually don't cancel teams for certain args and will give them grace since I view debate as a game but you can convince me otherwise!

PF: I am very well versed in this area, and a stern believer that PF should remain like PF. Please don't try to be high theory on your opponents, otherwise go try policy.

Since rounds are only 45 min, I think CX should be binding so you can build args. Be organized, I don't care how many contention or subpoints you have, I'll keep up. I flow most things, make sure you signpost. I think since there are less arguments in PF, you should have quality evidence. Logistics are always welcomed, but if most of the round is false logic then I will decide based on evidence quality even if you did well at framing. Just because the nature of PF is more evidence based.

LD: I never did this event but I understand its about morals/ethics and a mix of pf and policy. Especially in LD, you should center around your value criteria. Ref puff stuff to know more about me but I will judge you base on how you want me to.

TOC:

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

Substance:

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

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

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

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

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Theory:

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

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

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

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win. The definition of what constitutes an "RVI" is irrelevant.

K:

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

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

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

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

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

CPs:

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

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

FW:

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

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

Tricks:

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

GOATs:

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

Presumption:

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

Speaks:

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

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

—WP

TLDR: Good with Substance, Ks, theory, whatever u want to debate. Over 200wpm, and I'll prob need a doc.

Sinan Roumie (He/Him/His)

Sinanrdebate@gmail.com

I'm a Senior at Bronx Science and have been doing PF for the past four years + a little bit of CX.

Tech > Truth

NO POST ROUNDING. You can ask for feedback, but I'm not interested in you telling me every point in your case and how you should have won. Adapt better, your final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

Anything remotely racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, homophobic etc, etc will result in an automatic L20

Important In Round Stuff

• Nothing is sticky; extend what you want me to evaluate

• Good with speed, but FF & summary should be slow to clarify offense

• ***I don’t like to do evidence comparisons, I want to vote solely off my flow/what y’all tell me to vote for. However, if an evidence claim is brought up in round I will vote off a lack of evidence/ bad evidence, even if that claim is not a direct evidence challenge.

• Keep your offtime road maps brief

• I listen to cross but it won’t sign my ballot

• Both teams can agree to skip grand for prep

• I presume NEG, unless told otherwise

• Speak overtime and I'll stop flowing

Progressive arguments:

• If you are in Varsity, be prepared to hit varsity arguments.

• Everything should be warranted, especially in the back half.

• Feel free to run progressive arguments on newbies. I think it’s funny, and people learn how to debate these arguments when exposed to them. DON'T DEBATE DOWN- treat every round like its your bubble.

• I don't have a default for what should be evaluated first in the round other than prefiat>postfiat. Def warrant why K>theory, theory>K, etc.

[Theory]:

• Fairness is an internal link, not an impact.

• Baiting theory is fine. It's a valid strategy. If you read baiting theory as a warrant for No RVIs, I'll evaluate it, but I need further implications on why it is bad.

• I default yes RVIs if there's no ink on that debate

• +1 speaker point if you specify whether RVIs apply to offense or defense

• +1.5 speaker points if you read RVI spec [+0.5 more if you win on it]

[K's]:

• Alt should resolve the link- rejecting the aff is not a good alt(unless it is)

• You can spread cards in the 1NC, but i gotta actually understand them by final

• I prefer Identity Ks > philosophical Ks mainly because I understand Identity args better.

• Speaks:

• Performance - if it's good ill give 30s

• Egregious Clipping - speaks cap’d at 28

• Paraphrasing - speaks cap’d at 27

• Callout K - speaks cap’d at 25

[K AFF's]:

• Topical affs are cool, Nontopical affs are also cool.

• Please, please, please have a topic link. Too many affs nowadays don't have topic links, and while that's fine, it would make adjudicating so much easier.

• Please only read a K aff if you are good at debating it. I have a high threshold for them

[Trix]:

• Not experienced with them, run them at your own risk

Speaks

1. 30 speaks warrants have to be extended for it to be eval’d

2. Speaks are based on round strategy, not speaking style

3. -1 speaks if you are a big school that adds an xyzdocs@gmail.com to the chain

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.

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.

K

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 :(

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

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. While I enjoy clash rounds, I am probably better for policy v policy or K v K or phil v phil debates.

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.

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.

2: Clash rounds

3: Tricky Phil (Determinism is not tricky).

4: 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.

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)

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 rehiglughting, 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.

Southlake Carroll '24

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

If you have any questions always feel free to reach out ^

TL;DR

Tech > Truth. Go as fast as you want, weigh/warrant well, and have fun. Progressive argumentation is good. Don't be awkward, mean, or problematic.

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 wpm, but make sure you send docs before the speech. Slower = verbatim, Faster = paraphrasing when it comes to my flow, aim for the former.

I'll probably always have done some research on the topic, but still explain jargon.

DEBATE IS A GAME

I will vote for any argument as long as it's warranted and unproblematic. DAs, impact turns, squirelly contentions - I'm good with them all.

Prefs —

LARP - 1

Theory - 1

Kritik - 2

High Theory - 3

Counterplans - 3

Non-T Kritik - 4

Performance - 4

—— GENERAL ——

Signposting is crucial, especially for messier rounds. Judge instruction is also super helpful and highly valued (how to evaluate the round, when/whether I should grant new arguments, if I should gut-check or err one way or another, etc).

I definitely won't flow and might not listen to cross, if you want me to remember something bring it up in speech. Also skip GCX pls pls pls.

Resolve clashing link-ins/pre-reqs/short circuits - otherwise I'll most likely have to intervene to resolve it & I'll be sad.

Send full docs before all speeches where new evidence is read, and send marked ones afterwards, especially if you're going fast.

Absent warrants, I'll always presume first due to recency skew, but you can change that with warrants. No new presumption warrants in final focus though, make sure they're in summary.

Please label email chains so they're easy to organize. Ex. "Bronx Semis - Southlake Carroll RY (Aff 2nd) vs. JR Masterman AC (Neg 1st)"

—— PROGRESSIVE ——

A — THEORY

I really like good theory debates. Disclosing open-source with round reports is good, but I will vote for anything as long as its won. I won't let my biases affect how I eval theory (exception incoming...), so respond however you want. (I will err to OS in full text v. os debates though...)

I default to competing interps and no RVIs, but that can change. Reasonability is persuasive the more frivolous the shell is.

Shoe and Team Sweater theory is friv, hyper-specific disclosure shells and must not send Google docs are not.

For reference, here's a list of shells I've ran/hit/understand: disclosure, paraphrase, round reports, topicality, open-source, full text, bracketing, spec method/actor/rvis/rotb, womenx, must send speech docs, must not send google docs, post/pre-fiat spec, vague alts bad.

B — KRITIKS

I'm game if you want to run a topical K and you do it well.

I'm most familiar with the following: cap, fem ir, securitization, set col, and orientalism. I prob won't understand anything hyper-unique in this realm; if it's not in the above list or isn't a variation of it, be cautious of reading it or overexplain.

Reject alts and discourse alts are fake, but I will vote on them if won. On that note, I'm pretty flexible with extratopical alternative/method strategies, which I think is needed for a well-executed K in PF. (pls do that; ontological revisionism > reject capitalism)

You have to win your links to access pre-fiat offense. I will never vote for arguments precluding your opponents from linking in or "we said it first".

Theory uplayers the K but I can be convinced otherwise.

C — FRAMING

I default to util and will always evaluate basic framing (think Fem, SV, etc). Anything more complex is out of my realm, but I'll listen to anything.

D — COUNTERPLANS

I've never ran a counterplan but I will evaluate them with a kinda-low theshold for responses. I'm curious as to if things like process CPs are viable in PF, and am yet to find out; I think they could be cool.

Probably won't work on "on balance" resolutions, but if it's a fiated policy topic, go for it I guess.

E — TRICKS

I won't evaluate anything I don't understand and my knowledge on these falls off a cliff once you go past "predictions fail" to "dogmatism paradox".

—— EXTRA ——

SPEAKS:

I'm pretty generous with speaks; I'll almost always give atleast a 28.5 as long as you don't do anything offensive.

Make the round both enjoyable & quick, run an innovative strat, and have airtight practices (os disclosure + rr, full card docs before every speech) for a 30.

Hey guys! I'm Jake (he/him), rising junior with 20+ tournaments of experience in WSD, and a proud member of the USA Development Team (reigning world champions!!!)

I think that World Schools should be a fairly intuitive event, so don't try too hard to adapt to me as a judge and do what you're most comfortable with. With that said, a few minor preferences for Worlds debates:

1. Style is irrelevant to me so long as I can understand you with one exception: I really appreciate adding humor to rounds and I will be happy to bump you up a speaker point or two for a very well-delivered joke.
2. I'm not a fan of washing clashes out: I generally tend to think that one of the two sides is ahead in nearly every issue. This also means that if you clearly outline your paths to the ballot, you've probably won my vote.
3. I don't buy the strategy of example-spamming (or "example tennis" as Alex Lee puts it), I almost always prefer a well-explained warrant even if there are multiple examples going against it. I mainly use examples as deadlock breakers between two equally sound lines of reasoning.
4. I'm cool with you not running third subs, I really don't like running them most of the time. If you want me to vote off a third sub, it has to either change my perspective on the debate or turn the core of your opponent's case.
5. I don't value principle over practical or vice versa by default, if you're winning on one and losing on the other explain to me why I should prefer the one you're winning.

Most importantly, MAKE SURE YOU'RE ENJOYING YOUR DEBATES!!! The philosophy of my coaches on USA Dev was that a competition is a success so long as you had fun and learned something: I didn't listen to that and learned the hard way what overcompetitiveness does (I burned out hard during second semester.) Don't feel pressured to win any rounds or upset because you didn't. Ultimately, the only reason why you're doing debate is because you enjoy it: make sure that doesn't change. Good luck and have fun!

:(