Tabroom.com

Freshman Deathmatch Round Robin

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Maisa Ahmad Hire

Last changed on Mon June 12, 2023 at 1:08 PM CST

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.

Arjun Banerjee Hire

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 2:39 PM EST

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"

Jack Beery Hire

Last changed on Tue July 9, 2024 at 7:48 AM EST

Plano Senior '24, University of Maryland '28

Hey, my name is Jack, im a freshman at the University of Maryland and I competed for three years on the Texas circuit primarily in congress and extemp, though I am very proficient in most debate (competed in pf, ld, worlds) and interp events (competed in duo, oo, info, knowledge in most others as team was primarily interp focused).

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

TLDR: FLAY

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.

Ilan Benavi Hire

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 10:49 AM EST

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

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.

Aben Bhattachan Hire

Jad Cehajic Hire

Sam Chen Hire

Ishan Dubey Hire

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 4:44 PM EST

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

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and have actively coached there since.

General

In nearly all debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth," though I dislike the distinction.

When left to my own devices, I will assess the arguments made in the debate to determine if the plan/resolution/advocacy would be a better idea than the status quo.

Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.

I lean towards timeframe over try-or-die and link over uniqueness, but this is nothing effective debating can't overcome.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. You may not "clear" your opponents.

Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff must make its way into a speech.

Flex prep is fine. Every word, including the asking of the question, must be timed. However, answering clarifying questions is optional, especially if the preceding speech was clear.

Evidence

Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.

Cards should be cut and contain at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag" and "it was in the tag"), relevant citations (ideally including author qualifications), and the full paragraph you quote from.

Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not necessary assuming clear or minimal verbal marking in-speech.

If you believe someone is violating the rules, stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I cannot evaluate theory arguments about rule violations.

Avoid paraphrasing.

Expect me to have topic knowledge.

I have a relatively high warrant threshold, especially for counterintuitive or nonobvious arguments.

Sound analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.

Defense is not "sticky."

Second rebuttal must frontline.

Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am usually not nitpicky.

Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.

Because of time constraints, you may insert re-highlights.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.

Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. Judge instruction, however, is undervalued: telling me how to evaluate the debate will make my decision more predictable.

The Pro/Con (Aff/Neg when applicable) should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.

I reward creativity and hard work. Laziness, not to be confused with simplicity, is disappointing.

LD/CX

I have enough exposure to both events to keep up but will be unfamiliar with the topic.

Best for policy debates; fine for most else.

Not a huge fan of abusing conditionality.

Text and function are probably good standards for competition.

Theory

I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and heavily semantical theory interpretations.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.

Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.

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

Any response strategy is fine. Better than most for Framework and Topicality.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Speaker points are relative and assigned according to adherence to my paradigm and incisiveness.

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

Emilio Garza Hire

Last changed on Tue October 22, 2024 at 4:36 AM CST

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

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

Dash Gilrain Hire

Obiora Goodluck Hire

Saanvi Goyal Hire

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 10:54 AM PST

I've done PF for a couple years now under Monta Vista TG and did decently (3x GTOC + Bid leader).

General:

tech > truth

this paradigm is not an end all be all, its simply my preferences in terms of argumentation, feel free to run whatever u want that isn't racist/sexist/etc.

put me on the email chain (saanvig2006@gmail.com) or speech drop is also chill

speech docs with cut cards in the correct order sent before the speech are a must in varsity

I will rarely presume unless there are warrants read to do so, I will typically attempt to find some risk of offense that is extended through the last speech.

Prefs:

1 - LARP

2 - Theory

3 - K Affs

4 - Topical K

5 - Tricks

S - Phil/High Theory

Evidence: I will not call for cards unless the LBL on evidence disagreements are really unclear. I think card calling almost always leads to some sort of unwarranted intervention, so most times I'll just evaluate the evidence debates like a regular flow.

Speed: Fast debate is good debate. Slow down on tags and a little in the back half (I'll clear you if I can't keep up but a general metric is don't be above 250).

Cross: I don't care that much, I will try to pay attention. Open cross is chill.

Trad: Read whatever you want as long as it's not any kind of -ist. I am good for impact turns, soft left args, framing, or whatever substantive arg you can warrant.

Theory: I'm comfortable with and enjoy theory debate. I am extremely skeptical of "I don't know how to respond" esque arguments - If you're in varsity you should be able to handle the level of debating that comes with

Framing: Read whatever framing arguments you want. Constructive is the best time to read framing arguments, the later you introduce it in the round, the less I'll be happy evaluating it.

Non-Topical K: Performance, etc. are chill. I am generally familiar with many arguments of this sort, pess, killjoy, rage.

Topical K: I have read and hit these arguments. Because K lit tends to be very dense, if I am unfamiliar with your kritik I would highly appreciate descriptive tags that aren't filled with buzzwords. The Ks I'm most familiar with are cap, set col, anthro and securitization.

All that being said, I'm not a very experienced K debater. I'll do my best to evaluate the round in spite of these things but know that there is a risk I may not fully understand what you are saying and that it may affect my final decision.

Phil/High Theory/Tricks: I don't get it. I don't understand most phil things, so I'm going to have a hard time voting for them with no clue what is happening. I barely know what high theory is. I have to read Tricks 500 times to even remotely get what they are saying. I will not purposely hack against these arguments but understand that the chance I really understand what you are saying is LOW.

For LD and Policy

I'm decent for the basics terminology and functionalities of these events (plans, cps, perms, competition all that good stuff) BUT I probably need more judge instruction than you would with your regular policy/ld tech. I err aff on process cps and neg on condo, but can be easily persuaded and will only evaluate those debates on the lbl.

lmk if yall have any questions!

Yakub Islamov Hire

Shaun Jones Hire

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 4:46 PM EST

Basis Independent McLean '24, UC Irvine '28 |PF| shaunjones247@gmail.com (he/him)

About Me: 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. Now I go to UC Irvine where I'm double majoring in Political Science and Mechanical Engineering.

Quick excerpt about the local VA circuit from my good friend 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 docs to shaunjones247@gmail.com and novacados0@gmail.com .

Please warrant things, especially in the backhalf. Preflowing before round is preferred so we can start the round asap. 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:

Your best bet with me is just high speed tech substance debate. Its what I loved doing in highschool and I enjoy judging high-paced, super technical rounds. That being said, I can evaluate theory, K (both T and non-T), and basically anything else. I'm open to judging weird stuff like phil, high theory and skep, but you need to slow down in the backhalf and warrant things out so I can properly evaluate it. If you do read anything like phil or high theory, I think its cool you've spent the time to learn it and I'll try my hardest to make sure your efforts arent wasted. Trix are funny. You can read them if I'm judging and I'll eval it.

Stuff specific to the local Virginia Circuit (WACFL): Disclosure isn't a norm, I won't vote off of it. I would be inclined to drop you if you read disclosure against teams that you know don't have an opencaselist. 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. Please set up an email chain though; WACFL rounds run super late because it takes years for teams to call for individual cards, so setting up an email chain before round will make things much smoother.

Content Warnings:

Please provide content warnings if you are about to discuss sensitive topics (sexual violence, self-harm) 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:
I dont pay attention during cross. As a result, 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. Impact turns are cool. Read them.

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" absent warranting 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 if its not warranted.

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 so please 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:

I generally presume aff, if the neg cant prove why doing the aff is bad then I see no reason why we shouldnt at least try doing the aff.

Speaks:

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

Postrounding:

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

Fun Stuff:

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

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

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

Good luck, have fun, and do your best!

Roy Kapoor Hire

Manhua Kim Hire

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 5:45 AM CST

Extemp:

Biggest thing is to answer the question. I am a content-oriented judge who focuses on the flow of logic throughout the speech. Delivery should mainly serve as a means of communication, otherwise, it's a secondary concern. Sources need to be strong and correctly summarized. Rhetoric is extremely important and I appreciate impacts that are 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. What 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 emotion: tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. Humour is appreciated too! Really stick to the allotted time of 7 minutes. Your rank will be affected if you go over 7:10.

Congress:

I will consider the PO when ranking a round, though not as high as the best speakers in a round. Expect a 3-6 range unless you mess up often, although that's subject to change depending on if the PO-ing is exceptional or if the speakers in the room are exceptionally weak. I weigh content and speaking style evenly, with a slight preference for content. A few fluency errors are forgivable, but it's best to be polished. Humour is appreciated. First AFF/NEGs should cover the specifics of what the piece of legislation does. Don't assume the judge has analysed or seen the legislation beforehand. I prefer the quality of speeches over the quantity of speeches. I'd rather you not speak than rehash a previous speech. Every speech after the first cycle should have clash. I want to see round adaptation and the rebuttal/extension of the arguments of a specific speaker, mandatory after the third cycle.

General Debate Guidelines:

I'm not a "tech judge." Consider me "flay," as the kids call it these days. I'll flow line-by-line for constructive, but I also want to see some big-picture analysis and breakdowns--weighing, fleshed-out impacts, etc--in all later speeches. I'm ok with spreading if you share a case doc. Do not spread analysis; I can understand speed but you will find that I comprehend your arguments better if you slow down during points of emphasis that you want me to write down. Sign-post more than you think you need to. If there is an email chain in the round, I would like to be added to it (E-mail:manhua.kim@gmail.com). Profanity and rude behaviour will not be tolerated. There is a difference between being competitive in a round and being demeaning.

Not a fan of paraphrasing, but you can do it; however, I am very strict on evidence ethics. If you're paraphrasing something, you better have the evidence to back it up. That doesn't mean having a huge PDF that the other team needs to scroll through. The NSDA evidence rule states that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting/paraphrasing. I will give you a reasonable amount of time to find the evidence. If you can't find it, either drop the argument or use your prep time to find it. I will drop you for evidence abuse.

PF:

***Honestly with this stale topic I'm inclined for you to run anything atp***

There is no requirement to frontline in constructive. A lack of rebuttal in constructive won't be considered as dropping an argument. Do not contest points in FF; focus solely on why you won the round and weighing; needs voters. I don't believe theory/K arguments belong in PF--the event is meant to be accessible to everyone--but I am willing to evaluate such arguments. Kritiks are often predicated on complex and abstract concepts that require considerable explanation. If you can clearly and comprehensively explain these concepts within the time constraints of PF, then I'm willing to hear you out. Similar things can be said about other progressive arguments. I explain what that means in terms of theory in the LD section, but brief summary: With kritiks, make sure you actually understand the arguments you present, quote directly from the author of the ideas, and don't just throw jargon at me as an explanation. Must have substantive impacts and solvency. These are complicated arguments and I expect you to be able to understand, navigate, and explain them clearly if you decide to run it. With T-shells and other theory arguments, don't run myopic or pedantic arguments. Run them in good faith only when you believe there is clear and deliberate abuse from your opponents.

LD:

I can comprehend theory/K arguments and welcome them in LD (unlike PF), but I'm not as fluent in them as your average prog debater. As a result, the further you stray from traditional LD, the harder it is for me to grasp your argument and the less likely it is for me to vote on said argument. Will take Topicality as an RVI if properly argued. Will not vote on conditional counter-plans. I am Tabula Rasa, but I don't buy unsubstantiated claims. I will only evaluate arguments I understand, meaning each link and claim in an argument must be properly supported by some justification for me to believe what you're saying. Don't go using the shotgun method with theory arguments, that is, throwing as many possible theory arguments at your opponent, disregarding the quality of said arguments, to see what sticks and overwhelms. Bring quality arguments to the table. With T-shells and other theory arguments, you have to keep the big picture in mind, beyond myopic line-by-line examination. These are best reserved for when you believe you're the target of intentional and flagrant unfair behaviour. Ex: I'll only buy disclosure if you can prove their lack of disclosure substantially inhibited your ability to debate. With kritiks, you better actually understand the concepts behind them, starting by reading and quoting the actual author. There has to be something substantive behind advocacy. What are the implications of accepting the world of the kritik? How does it affect the affirmative harms and solvency? Why must I reject the affirmation's rhetoric, arguments, impacts, etc? If you're adopting a framework, how does abiding by it affect the actions we are going to take? These are complicated arguments and I expect you to be able to understand, navigate, and explain them clearly if you decide to run it.

WSD:

Just a few guidelines:

- Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Two reasons for this. First, evidence on its own is rarely capable of proving an argument. A lot of evidence is context-dependent and it gets complicated; second, in the time constraints of a round, evaluating the strength of a warrant is a more achievable objective than evaluating the strength of evidence

- Substance over style. Debaters come from many different backgrounds and are accustomed to different styles. Best arguments supersede stylistic choices. With that being considered, I do value polished speaking and strong rhetoric at a conversational speed.

- Be comparative; worlds that run in parallel against each other without a clear-cut way to break the deadlock make it quite difficult to decide who wins the debate. Weighing wins rounds.

Oratory/Info:

I'm overall pretty open-minded when it comes to these two events. You have the freedom to take on any structure or approach as you please, and I value originality and creativity. Rounds with very similar topics can become stale quickly so expressing your personality through your piece is a great way to stand out. Show passion for your topic. That being said, a few things: In an Oratory, as basic as this sounds, I want to very clearly see a problem, its impact, and a solution(s). Your problem should be universally applicable, and your solution should be realistically feasible and effective. There also should be some personal connection to the topic. By the end of the speech, I should see why you specifically chose this topic. For Info, I just want to learn something new. Visuals are not required but are very much appreciated. Quality over quantity is key with visuals. Make sure the visuals are adding to the speech, not just frivolous distractions.

Interp:

I'm least familiar with Interp, but they're my favourite events to spectate (my team was heavily Interp-focused). What stands out to me is the topic/argument, character work, and emotional moments. The topic should be unique and intriguing. What is the importance of the piece for the audience and how does it introduce a new perspective? Character work is also very important. Do you embody the character authentically to who they are? Finally, there are "moments," or points of emotional significance. This is most clearly the climax of the piece but there are other places as well that can contribute to the development of the piece. Really it's passion that shines through for me in these moments and I'm a sucker for those. If you can make me cry, that's almost an automatic 1 in my books. Make sure to have fun!

Shalom Kihara Kimani Hire

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

Yes email chain:kiharakimani61@gmail.com

About me:

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

Judging Rubric :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Kirylau Hire

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 6:39 PM CST

TLDR: flow judge, I want to judge a slow-ish round (<200 WPM), please collapse and weigh, I like unique arguments and wacky turns :)

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

I'm a current student at the University of Illinois studying computer science and philosophy. I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). This is my second year judging PF (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style Preferences

I can judge speed assuming you send docs (marked!), but I don't want to unless you're exceptionally clear. I don't like super fast rounds because they encourage debaters to give blippy warrants and lazy weighing.

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. DO NOT READ FOUR (OR MORE !!?) CONTENTIONS IN CASE. I’m also 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 and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/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 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 are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.

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, 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 will evaluate all forms of progressive debate unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (aka tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.

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, and no RVIs.

Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.

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

anna l Hire

David Levin Hire

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:30 AM EST

David Levin

he/him/his

Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com

Current Affiliations: Speyer School; Berkeley Carroll; Collegiate

Previous Affiliations: St. Luke's: 2022-24 [Conflict]; Success Academy Charter Schools: 2019-20; Bronx Science: 2018-19

----------

Top-Level Expectations:

-All evidence read will be in cut cards and sent before its respective speech (marked documents afterward is ok)

-Debaters will not clip cards or otherwise misrepresent evidence (paraphrasing is a voting issue)

-Debaters will treat their opponents, judge(s), room and partner with decency

-DEBATERS WILL BE READY TO START THE ROUND ON TIME

-Debaters will time themselves

-Google Docs speech documents must be downloadable

----------

Policy:

-I have a bit lower speed threshold than a lot of circuit policy judges. Start your speeches a bit slower to let me get acclimated to your voice/speed. Me "clearing" you wont affect your speaker points, but it could affect what i'm able to get on my flow.

-I have done very little research on the topic - keep this in mind for acronyms, terms of art, and normal means arguments.

-I have a bit more confidence judging K v. K and "clash" rounds than "straight-up" policy rounds.

-I'm happy to vote for procedural fairness.

-I'm equally happy to vote for an impact turn against procedural fairness.

-My favorite K affs have had some degree of relevance to the resolution, whether implicit or explicit. This fact is descriptive, not prescriptive.

-I thoroughly enjoy a good T debate. I especially enjoy competing interpretations on the substance of the resolution (words other than "Resolved:" and "USFG").

-Quality over quantity for off-case - multiple conditional advocacies are fine on face value, but run the risk me getting a shallower understanding of the argument.

-Generally, no RVIs.

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most of the popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new!

-Process counterplans aren't cheating, but that doesn't mean they're good.

-I default to aff fiat being immediate, but I'd be interested to see fiat/implementation contested.

-Perms are tests of competition.

-I miss A-Spec. (That does not necessarily mean its always a good argument)

-I love judge instruction - write my ballot in the 2N/AR.

-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!

----------

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm beginning to judge more LD, but I have >10 years of experience with Policy and PF debate. As such, I'll be judging like this is a 1v1 policy round. Speed is usually fine, but please slow down on analytics and shells, especially if they aren't in the doc (I'd prefer them to be in the doc). I'll clear you if you're too fast, without penalty to your speaker points if you're responsive. Flex prep annoys me but I'll allow it. For the sake of all things holy, SIGNPOST (that includes giving me an actual pause to go to the next flow). If my flow is a mess, my RFD will be a mess. Help me help you.

Thoughts on arguments:

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new.

-Counterplans and Perms - Process counterplans are broadly legitimate. I default to aff fiat being immediate, but I'd be interested to see fiat/implementation contested. Perms are tests of competition.

-T - I love voting on T, both for it and against it. This is especially true of T against policy affs (competing interps on words other than "Resolved:" or "USFG"). I'm less familiar with Nebel/Whole Res T, but I'm willing to evaluate it if warranted well. Education > Fairness in most cases.

-Affs that don't defend the resolution - I have no face value objections to these. That said, I've found method testing to be the most compelling negative argument for SSD. Why is your injunction against the "norm" preferable?

----------

Public Forum:

-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud

-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot

-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument

-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts

-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo

-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting

-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you

-This trend of having a sentence on the wiki serve as "terminal defense" against theory is silly. if you're thinking about theory enough to have a blurb about it on your wiki, I expect you've thought about it enough to have substantive responses

----------

Alex Liu Hire

Yug Mehta Hire

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

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

Vedant Misra Hire

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

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

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

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

TL; DR in bold

Alr, time for the juicy stuff:

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

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

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

*****SUBSTANCE*****

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

EVIDENCE:

This one's important.

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

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

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

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

PROGRESSIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD Paradigm

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

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

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

SPEAKS:

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

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

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

IMPORTANT STUFF:

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

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

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

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

Pet Peeves

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

TO CONCLUDE

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

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

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

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

Inesh Nambiar Hire

John O'Toole Hire

Olayinka Oderanti Hire

Rita Pham Hire

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 10:56 AM CST

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.

William Pirone Hire

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

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.

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

Pranav Pradeep Hire None

Sinan Roumie Hire

Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar Hire None

Jay Shapiro Hire

Last changed on Sat June 22, 2024 at 7:29 PM CST

I am a first year at USC and I coach privately. I debated for Edina in high school, acquiring over 20 bids and 2 autoqualifications to the TOC, and I won UKSO, Bronx, Apple Valley, Dowling, Millard, and the Cal RR.

I learned debate primarily fromAlec Boulton and I'll judge relatively similar to how he does. Look at his paradigm if mine is confusing.

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 expect all docs to be sent in an email chain before the speech. Evidence exchange without docs takes a long time, and sending docs deters the use of fake evidence. If you can't meet this standard, strike me.

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

absent extenuating circumstances, specs must keep their laptops closed during round

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

substance

uniqueness>>>>>link

tech>truth

collapse

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.

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 and cowardice are both voters.

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

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.

speaks

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

Hanming Sun Hire

Will Trinh Hire

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 4:23 PM EST

Hey y'all! I'm Will (he/him) and I primarily did LD on the National Circuit. I qualified to the TOC my senior year reading every argument under the sun. I coach for Vanguard Debate and Stuyvessant while doing work for the New Haven Urban Debate League. I am moderately versed on the ins and outs of any given topic for LD. I now attend Yale University (Go Bulldogs!)

Tl;dr: Tech>Truth. No such thing as truthfully tab. If anybody says that, be extremely suspicious of their ability to actually evaluate "arguments." Read whatever if you can thoroughly warrant it, though Policy, Kritikal, Topicality, and straight-up Phil get significantly higher speaks. I have zero problem intervening when a debater's safety is being violated. I do not flow off the doc. I will only intervene vs seven claims I do not perceive to be arguments and things that would deny the safety of other debaters (which are alllisted below). I am 18 years olds please just call me Will. Line by line good (you don't need OVs when extending offense if you're aff). Evidence matters, but so does spin/explanation. Explained/Contextualized Cards WITH WARRANTS>>Smart Analytics>>>>>> PF card quality evidence. I am great for debaters who want to defend things with robust warranting. Pretty bad judge for cowardice. Very expressive person. Feel free to refer to said expressions. Good luck have fun!

Email chain>>>

Add Both when I'm in the back.

william.trinh@yale.edu

vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su

Feel free to ask questions to that email before or after any round/tournament!

Please format email chains properly. “Tournament Name (Year) -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code].

Example: “TOC Digital 3 2024 Round 3 AFF Southern California Debate Union RN vs NEG Heritage WT”

I do not flow from the document. I only open it to read evidence for reference during prep or CX when it might be relevant. I will not backflow.

I try to mimick Holden Bukowsky's judging and mostly agree with their takes. If you would read something in front of Holden, you can probably read it in front of me. Treat me as a slightly more fascist, but less grumpy version of them.

Most questions in debate such as link determines uniqueness/vice versa, shields link to the net benefit, etc are most likely probabilistic (though I can be persuaded some are yes/no questions). The only questions that are decisivley yes/no, are questions of models such as competition, violations, framework, etc that are forced to be evaluated as such because of the logic of debate. There is no such thing as whether the debate over the violation is a "wash."

In terms of comfortability evaluating

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

2: Phil v Phil

4: "Tricky Phil"

5: Theory/Trix

Strike: Trad/Lay

In terms of what I enjoy judging
1: Policy v Policy, K v K, K Aff v T-Framework, Impact Turns v K Affs

2: Policy v K, Phil v K, Phil v Phil, Policy v Phil. Policy v 2NRs on T

4: Theory

5: "Tricky Phil," Trix

Strike: Trad/Lay

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.

UPDATE: Flowing appears to be a lost art. If I can flow without speech documents, then flowing while the document is right in front of you should be a piece of cake. I will cap speaks at a 27.5 if you answer arguments in the speech doc but weren't read.

You MUST take prep time or CX in order to ask questions. I have zero problem with flow clarification when it occurs on your own time and won't penalize you but I will nuke speaks if you are not running a timer when you should.

Be reasonable. If you marked cards all over the place offer to send a marked doc before CX/prep starts. You do not need to say if you are skipping a card, teams should flow. If one card was marked/skipped, for the love of god just learn to flow.

Unless I ask, assume I am fine and don't need a card doc.

Nonnegotiable

Safety first. I refuse to vote on "arguments" such as "Truth Testing/Skep takes out misgendering/racism/other objectively morally repugnant things." You can still go for "Truth Testing/Skep takes out this substantive argument (like a Kritik)" but do not expect me to vote for you if you go for "you can't vote on misgendering theory because they conceded truth testing." Be a decent human being or else expect an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Cross-Ex is good and is best used as a speech. I am fine with you prepping while asking and answering a question but you cannot say "I'll take the rest of CX as prep."

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

1]Evaluate the entire debate after (x speech) that is not the 2AR.

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

3]Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, self-harm good, etc.) (Heg good and death good do not necessarily cross their barriers) The debate will end.

4]Shells that dictate what your opponent must do outside the context of a debate round/dress/you get the idea. (Disclosure is something in the round).

5]Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

6]No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. I will not vote on no 2NR I Meets or the like.

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

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

Policy Arguments

Love them. I feel most comfortable judging these debates.

Great for impact turns, CP Comp, Agenda Politics/Elections, and general NEG terrorism.

Better than average for the intrinsciness test but I still lean NEG due to the late-breaking nature of these debates (especially since the 1AR is NOT a constructive).

1AR Counter-Terrorism is super underrated. Some positions should be straight turned more often.

1NCs baiting 1ARs to read offense on one flow to allow a 2NR on another is a very effective strategy if the AFF does not catch on.

1NCs should read at least one CP Comp card.

1AR/2NR should read more cards. However, the 1AR/2NR is not a constructive speech. 2NRs do not get new impact cards unless 1AR reads impact turn... etc.

Evenly debated, I lean neg on most if not all theoretical issues but debate it out.

I think competing off of solely immediacy/certainty is silly but debate it out.

Textual Competition seems silly and so does positional competition but I am fine for 1ARs that argue the former is a necessary but insufficient burden for the negative and that positional competition isn't the worst thing in the world to preserve NEG ground.

Most permutations teams claim are intrinsic are not actually intrinsic.

Permutations should be sent in the 1AR doc with precise texts.

Permutations that aren't PDB/PDCP but are functionally legitimate do not need precise texts but the argument should be sent in the speech doc.

"Permutation do the plan and..." is fine to meet the above condition.

Kritikal Arguments

Great if you want to defend things. Terrible otherwise.

Framework matters. Leverage it more to take out aff theory/competition arguments. It is best debated about what burdens the AFF and NEG has in terms of burden of proof or rejoinder.

Middle Ground Interpretations are silly. I am best for AFF teams that go for Plan focus and NEG teams that go for interpretations that delete the plan.

Better for Fairness 2ARs than most judges. Often find it the most persuasive articulation for why the NEG should not get to lower their burden of rejoinder.

Alternative Solvency is much preferred but not always necessary. I find myself much better for NEG teams that are willing to defend things.

Ideal K 1NCs have 2-3 links (one of them being a topic link/link to the aff's mechanism), a thesis card, an alternative, and a framework interpretation.

Ideal K 2NRs have consistent stories. I think a research/pedagogy based link argument+framework+an alternative that resolves said pedagogical link argument is the best 2NR. That said, a K 2NR that is functionally an impact turn is always welcome if the aff doesn't double down.

I am often left wondering how the alternative solves the link in many debates which makes me more skeptical of framework 2NRs on research based impacts when you don't resolve your own offense.

Ideal 2ARs vs the K would be 3 minutes of Plan Focus+Extinction/OW OR impact turning the 2NR.

I am fine for the link turn+permutation strategy, it however requires robust DAs to the alternative which means going for an impact turn is usually preferable.

Topic links are incredibly underrated vs Phil Affs.

"A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning." -Holden Bukowsky

Read cards. I am skeptical of analytic link walls that lack evidence or 1AR responses to the K that are not carded.

T-Framework vs K Affs

I read a lot of non topical affirmatives in high school and frequently put framework in my 1NCs vs them so I’m decent for both sides.

Fairness is an impact."Hack against them" is not a very persuasive articulation of fairness. "Fairness is good because debate is a game and we have an intrinsic motivation to compete and win" is pretty sweet.

Lean negative but NEG teams cannot go for framework in LD in a convincing matter. Do better.

Identity Affs need to be more than “I am X identity now vote aff.”

Not really sure if clash is an impact.

K Affs that defend things>>>>queer overkill is bad now vote aff

Fairness>>Carded Skills Offense>>>>>>>>"Clash"

SSD and the TVA should be offensively framed.

K v K debates

Great for these debates, often my 2NRs vs K Affs.

High threshold for alt and link explanation in these debates.

Clear solvency mechanisms win debates.

Impact turns against the aff/alternative are super underrated.

Pretty bad for links of omission.

Phil Arguments

Despite being from California, I thoroughly enjoy these arguments when gone for substantivley.

Not a huge fan of calc indicts. Would much rather teams leverage their syllogism to take out arguments.

Besides mainstream enlightenment authors (and the authors that write about them nowadays like Korsgaard), and perhaps Butler, assume I know little to nothing about your author. EXPLAIN please...

Huge fan of the AC/NC Strategy. Going for it well gets high speaks.

READ CARDS. Evidence matters more than the words and moralizing of a high schooler/their coach. This is particularly important in Phil v K Rounds where I find myself voting NEG because they have read evidence for their broad sweeping claims but the AFF does not.

I almost find myself always voting negative if the affirmative does not have defense to the K's thesis.

Good for plan focus/TT takes out the Kritik in Phil v K Debates.

Ideal 2AR vs the Kritik is a Framework push about reciprocal burdens OR an impact turn like ideal theory good+defense to their thesis.

Topicality

If you are a team who likes to read a lot of evidence in these debates and throw down a very technical T Debate, I am your judge.

Precision matters more than debatebility in a vacuum. That being said, wholly unlimiting interps vs marginally more precise definitions are probably not winners. You should be comparative.

Speeches should send out Interpretation/Counter-Interpretation texts. Interpretations and Counter-Interpretations should be carded and ideally should reflect what the cards actually say. (i.e no CI: Their Interp+Our Aff with a definition that would say 20 other affs are topical).

Great for 2NRs that read cards.

Fine for Nebel-T. Speaks will be pretty low if you read off of a computer. Close it when giving the 2NR OV extension and your speaks will climb.

Terrible for reasonability. Great for 2AR pushes on precision vs arbitrary interpretations of the words "in" or the like.

Theory

Not the best judge but I will do my best.

1AR theory hedges are not very persuasive. NEG teams are better off with a robust defense of non resolution theory bad or reject the argument and not the team.

Reasonability is not very particularly persuasive. I am better for non resolution theory bad/DTA.

Will not vote for shells that dictate what debaters must wear.

Tricks

For the love of god stop putting me in these rounds. I will probably give an incoherent RFD and my brain hurts from this.

Initiating a tricks debate caps your speaks at a 28. If you are not the one to start these debates, go ham.

I have a higher threshold for warrants than your average judge on the east coast because I am a west coast judge at heart.

Things for Higher Speaks

Last tournament for a senior/some special occasion. You deserve to be celebrated.1 Off K Strategies. AC/NC strategies. 0 Off Impact Turns. Smart ADV-CP+Case Press vs bad affs. Straight turning NEG/AFF positions. T not from a file. Plans bad 2NR with semantics contextual to topic without a computer. Good 2NRs on T-Framework. Good 2NRs on Psychoanalysis/Set-Col vs K Affs.

Things for Lower Speaks:

Blitzing analytics at a million WPM with zero distinguishment.Being rude.Not flowing.Starting a tricks debate.Stealing prep (this includes asking questions about what cards weren't read without running a timer).

Misc: All of this can be changed with well-warranted argumentation. Debate it out. I don’t want to insert these defaults.

Offense/Defense Good

Topicality>ROTB/Judge Instruction (like K Framework)>Theory>Substance

Competing Interps, DTA, No RVI

Permissibility and Presumption Negate

Comparative Worlds

Epistemic Confidence

Judge Kick is Good but needs a warrant

Functional Competition is sufficient

Plan Text in a Vacuum

Policy Presumption

Logic and Abritrayness outweigh

Fairness is an impact

Precision matters

TJFs are illegitimate.

Insert rehighlighting is fine if explained AND it's in the same part of the article/book whatever. If it's a different part of the article, read it.

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

Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.

Vivek Yarlagedda Hire

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 5:37 PM CST

Debated for four years at Southlake Carroll, now a freshman at Stanford and coach for various teams.

Please use viveky@stanford.edu to send clearly labelled email chains; ie., "TOC R7.1 Southlake Carroll RY v. Seven Lakes LM". Keep in mind that I care more about the cleanliness of my inbox than the quality of your speaks

Glenbrooks 2024

- Above almost anything else, please be ready to debate 5 minutes before start time and don't waste time during the round (e.g., taking prep before final when the round is a wipe, taking several decades to send evidence). I'm going to start making this central to how I assign speaks.

- Unless you are confident in producing a high-quality substance debate, I'd honestly rather hear some combination or impact turns, theory, or K, especially at this tournament. I've judged 31 rounds thus far this season and maybe 2 of them have been great.

- This applies to any type of round, but I am not exaggerating when I say that the team who slows down in the backhalf and explains how the ballot should be written will most often win in front of me. I anticipate lots of dense, unclear, convoluted debates at this tournament. I also anticipate that whoever wins this tournament will have been the most clear team in the pool.

- My email's pretty slow due to university firewalls and whatnot. Make sure I've received the doc before you go ham.

- Don't call me judge, I'm not unc. Keep debates lighthearted. Don't be awkward. Have fun.

‎‎

TL;DR

I'm very tech over truth but feel that the shift of PF to "Policy-lite" is leaving much to be desired in terms of warranting, evidence ethics, clarity, and more. Aspects of that shift however—speed, progressive arguments, evidence comparison, etc—can be great when executed how they were originally intended. Moreover, I urge you to keep rounds (even high level/stakes ones) lighthearted, kind, and hopefully funny. Debate's a game and games should be fun. With that,

- I'll handle any speed you throw at me as long as I have a doc (before speech + marked after), but please slow down in the backhalf.

- I'll evaluate any argument you read but urge you to—at minimum—read the cheat sheet below and skim the rest of my paradigm.

- Judge instruction is the single key to my ballot; slow down, explain the incomprehensible yap, and write my ballot for me.

- Extensions must include all parts of the argument, but I don't care if they are delineated, in order, or sacrificed in quality for the sake of efficiency.

- Cross-ex is binding; utilize concessions to your advantage in-speech and skip grand cross if it feels unnecessary (99% of rounds).

- I presume neg during policy topics to preserve the status quo and first during on balance topics to counter last-word bias.

- Speaks are determined off of strategy, norms, and vibes—in that order.

- Don't call me judge please.

Some people who influenced much of the beliefs below include: Coach Brown, Anbu Subramanian, and Nikhil Reddy.

Some of my favorite judges when I debated were: Gabe Rusk, Ishan & Ilan, Maddie Cook, P, and Quinn McKenzie.

‎

Cheat Sheet:

LARP - 1

Theory -1

Topical Kritiks - 2

Non-T Kritiks - 4

Tricks - 4

Substance

My favorite type of debate. I still actively cut prep, so there's a decent chance I will be more researched in the topic than you are. Finding niche areas of topic ground was always my favorite part of debating, so I'll reward innovation greatly as a judge and urge you to throw your best, most squirelly positions at me. However, this also means I'm more attune than most to bad attempts at unique arguments, low quality frontlines, and overall subpar understanding of one's prep. Specifically:

- I evaluate probabilistically, but will more than willingly vote on risk of a disad/solvency given sufficient weighing. Winning zero risk/terminal defense is key in lieu of very clean weighing comparison, which is rare nowadays. If a debate ends with both teams winning a risk of offense and there exists clashing/unresolved prerequisite/shortcircuit/jargon analysis absent clear metaweighing, then expect a decision far more grounded in truth than tech.

- Semantically, I strongly prefer timeframe and prereqs/shortcircuits over appeals to "probability" with regards to impact debates, but do what you must.

- Please signpost to some degree across side of the flow, contention name, and uniqueness/link/impact.

- The ultimate strat will always be quality hidden links; there's a chance I pick up on them in the 1AC/NC, but clearly delineate which link you're extending and the fact that your opponent dropped a link in the backhalf.

- Smart evidence comparison will be more effective in front of me than most—I like to reward in-depth knowledge of your cards and such analysis is often the differentiator in high-level/close rounds.

- Dumping 30 second contentions is fine by me, but if you don't have the prep knowledge to fill in the gaps later you'll lose to anyone competent.

- For framing, I think util is likely truetil, as it links-in and overwhelms most other frameworks when warranted correctly. However, I'm no extinction first hack and find dense structural violence and the various sub-variations to be convincing when debated well. In front of me, I'd recommend a deep understanding of your framing evidence, embedded weighing (aprioris, link-ins, etc), and pre-fiat implications. These arguments should be read in constructive and I have a very high threshold for excluding link-ins by any team responding to them.

‎‎

Evidence

I cut a lot of evidence and will likely read a lot during round. However, outside of clipping, I will not let any indicts or issues I find in a team's evidence sway my ballot unless it was brought up by the other team during the round. Regardless, I have many many thoughts on the state of evidence in PF:

- Use consistent formatting with a single font, legibile higlighting, and proper bolding/underlining for emphasis. Ugly docs won't sway my decision, but may influence your speaks.

- Use an email chain or Speechdrop for evidence exchange, not a Google Doc that will inevitably be unshared after the 2AR/NR. Prep stealing is a question of I know it when I see it and I will call you out for it.

- I believe paraphrasing is a sin and bracketing is disingenuous, but won't unilaterally punish either practice unless told to.

-Important evidence must have descriptive taglines; "Indeed," & "Empirically," are acceptable for filler cards, but not for your dense uniqueness claims or core link evidence.

‎‎

Theory

I really like good theory debates and I ran theory quite a lot. I'll vote on any shell with minimal bias creep or intervention, with one notable exception below. Beyond that, anything is fair game, even if some may call it "frivolous".

- DEFAULTS: no RVIs, yes OCIs, no Reasonability, yes DTD

- Here is my understanding as to how a RVI functions/implicates in round, please clarify any alternate definitions during speech: if a team wins no RVIs, conceded defense to a shell is not a reason to vote for their opponents, however, a conceded turn is still a reason to do so.

- I don't care much about shell extensions; a verbatim interp extension post-rebuttal and any semblance of standard + DTD extensions is enough for me to pull the trigger.

- I think there should be a lot more "conventional weighing" (think scope, magnitude, etc) done between voters and standards in theory debates that would make them far easier to evaluate and less tenuous than they currently are in PF.

- In close open-source v. full-text debates, I will err towards open-source good every time. Even if the team reading full-text convincingly wins on the flow,I will cap speaks at 26.Disclosing blocks of text negates any benefit of disclosure overall and the common standards in most full-text counterinterps are shallow excuses to prevent scrutiny of evidence and pre-round prepouts while trying to maintain an unfair advantage.

- A non-exhaustive list of interps I've hit/read/understand: topicality, disclosure and subsequent sub-variations, paraphrasing, round reports, bracketing, a-spec, womxn, vague alts, spec post/pre-fiat, spec framing, author quals, google docs, and comic sans.

- Trigger warnings should be a question of reasonability regarding violations.

‎‎

Kritiks

I will evaluate what I understand. That being said, I've ran and cut a good amount of topical Ks in my career and am decently comfortable evaluating them. However, given the docbot/backfile-dependent nature of most teams' strategies against these positions, I have a high threshold for the quality of evidence and execution of these arguments.

- I'm most familiar with set col, sec/militarism, fem/racial ir, cap, and eugenics. Don't go too far beyond these literature bases and if you do, over-explain.

-Proving a link and explaining solvency are the two most important things to pick up my ballot with critical strategies. Links are best when contextual to your opponents and unabashedly big-stick in nature. Alts should be thoroughly explained and should solve the entirety of what the K is critiquing. I don't believe ROTBs are entirely necessary, but do believe that some level of neg fiat is required to make Ks viable in PF (please no reject alts). K Affs should distinguish their solvency between fiating the resolution and having an additional alternative.

- For non-topical Ks,I truly believe that these arguments have a place in PF when done right by teams who know what they are doing. That being said, I am very convinced by disads to both the practices of using the ballot as a method of change and encouraging the insertion of personal experiences into debate.

‎‎

Miscellaneous

- Tricks and ad-homs are non-starters.

- Post-rounding is fine.

- Feel free to email me with any questions.

- vy

Jake Zeng Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:36 PM EST

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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!

faith zhao Hire

Login to Tabroom

Freshman Deathmatch Round Robin

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges