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.

old not fun arjun paradigm before someone (AN EEL FROM TAB ????) made me change it

Speech doc + make fun of me for using yahoo + postrounding virtually: arjunp.banerjee@yahoo.com and jamesloganlddebatedocs@gmail.com (if I am judging you in LD set up the chain immediately I hate waiting for this to happen mid round! Evidence sharing is good pls make it fast).

I did LD back in high school (couple of state wins + T20 NSDA + T20 NCFL). I do NPDA at Cal now (won NPTE 2023 [carried by partner moment]). Me and my partner Holden also coach LD at James Logan.

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 ic 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.
• 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.

________________________________________________________

this was my fun super cool npdi paradigm until an evil eel from tab made me change it bc apparently it was too spooky! :(

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Dale!" - pitbull (but also me)

He/Him.

Yes add me to the email chain:arjunp.banerjee@yahoo.comand if i am judging your for LD (LD nat circuitORanyother tournament -- evidence ethics are good and youshouldset up a chain before hand in case there are disputes)jamesloganlddebatedocs@gmail.com(yes i 'coach' LD at logan: so I am contractually obligated to dothe gamble:+30 speaker points if you make a union city or jlo reference that I understand, 0 speaker points + autodrop if I don't understand it [i know nothing about union city]).

Parli UPDATE:if you do not disclose at least 30 minutes before the round begins to both my yahoo and the LD email, just strike me. I'm tired of hearing parli rounds that a) have no clash and b) I can't verify anything you're saying because the PMC didn't disclose. Disclosure needs to become the norm in parli and it starts with you.

Fast prefs:

Case -- strike

K -- strike

T -- strike

Trix -- 4.8

P - 1

Using weighing mechanisms as infinity stone - strike strike strike strike strike strike strike

More aboutme

I enjoy cookign. Everyone always links paradigms that embody their view of debate, here are mine:

KB

Scott Woods

Ozan's Poem:

"weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur"

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

Congress

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

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

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

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

Surface argumentation is fine, but I really want to see deep analysis of the legislation, hole poking and loopholes around the legislation are cool, but also make sure you present a net harm other than that to solidify your position.

If you argue neg and don't present a net harm, that is not bueno. Please give me a reason to fail the bill that extends past the fact that it is not comprehensive.

I don't know if you can do amendments in middle school, but if you can it would be cool to see a debate on that. Just make sure that the amendment is germaine, and actually changes something impactful about the bill.

Individual Events

Extemp:

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

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

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

Interp/OO:

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

Public Forum / Debate

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

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

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

I will eval kritiks if warranted and impacted correctly.

I will eval Theory shells if warranted and impacted correctly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth>Tech most of the time

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.

Extra / goofy stuff

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

extra speaks if you say any of the following in your speeches: Bruh, on god, let him cook, me after the lobotomy, swag, etc.

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

tldr stuff is bolded

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

General:

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

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

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

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

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

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

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

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

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

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

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

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

Part III - Weighing

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

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

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

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

Part IV - Defense:

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

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

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

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K affs:

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

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

K:

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

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

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

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

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

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

FW:

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

Tricks:

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

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

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

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

Speaks:

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

If you want a boost:

+0.5 if you send a seal emoji to start the email chain OR reference “the seal god”

+0.5 if second constructive is exclusively impact turns

+0.5 if you defend American hegemony

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

IM FLAY

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

defense is not sticky

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

i follow rwang's framework for drip

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

plz send (organized) ev docs b4 case and rebuttal +1 speaks if u do

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

i love flex prep!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

Did PF @ Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and, nowadays, I coach

Ishan > Judge, preferably

Create an email chain and add me: idubey23@mail.strakejesuit.org

tl;dr/stuff you should definitely read = bolded.

~~General Debate Thoughts~~

Do what you know how to do and do it well. If you want my thoughts and/or advice on anything debate-related, feel free to ask before or after the round. Be comfortable when you're debating and avoid as much awkwardness when you're not. Make every effort to avoid being late and don't waste time. Relatedly, pre-flow before start time.

Tech > Truth: I tend to believe truth is largely determined by the technical debating in round. Debate is a game about persuasion. You still need to convince me. The goal of my paradigm is to give you the necessary information to effectively do so. Treating me like a stereotypical policy-leaning flow/circuit judge is usually a safe bet, though not a lock. Most of my preferences/biases can be overcome by good debating, though not all.

Send speech docs before you speak.This is non-negotiable and entails, at a minimum, sending all evidence you plan on introducing in your speech. Your opponents can prep when you choose to "specific pieces of evidence" and vice versa. For more details, command f "PF evidence exchange"

Simpler arguments generally require less explanation. I care about how well you argue your position more than what it is, but that does not mean the latter is irrelevant. Conceded arguments are "true" per se, but only the conceded parts. "Even if" arguments and cross-applications can be made but I will obviously allow new responses to them. Also, I will not vote on an argument that I cannot make sense of or explain back to you, even if it was dropped.

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. Putting stuff into perspective simplifies the debate and makes my decision more predictable.

Winning zero-risk is not impossible but will usually require solid explanation and comparison.

Speak at whatever rate you want so long as you are comprehensible. I was a fast-ish debater. I appreciate pen time, especially if your cards are short. Do not sacrifice clarity. Slowing down on analytics and for emphasis, especially in back-half speeches, tends to be helpful. If you spread, please read real taglines (thus, additionally, etc don't count!) and actual cards otherwise flowing will be difficult and your speaker points will decrease. On the topic of tags, inventing warrants in them is also ill-advised, e.g. because X (claim nowhere in the card), Y (evidence) explains yada yada. I view this practice similarly to paraphrasing. Also, cards should form sentences.

I stop flowing when the timer hits 0. You should use a timer that goes off else it will be hard to tell. I probably won't keep track of time, so please make sure y'all do otherwise I may flow extra stuff and I won't scratch anything off of my flow unless you can verify that your opponents went over.

Evidence matters. However, this does not mean analytics do not. Good analytics can be very convincing, especially when used to break clash. No matter how much evidence someone reads, there are always gaps in logic that can be exploited. That said, I may not catch nor vote on incredibly blippy analytics. Evidence indicts do not advance the debate unless you explain why. I also enjoy evidence comparison debates and specificity.

Rounds often come down to weighing/impact calc, particularly turns case and link weighing. That said, whether or not you win some offense is still a gateway issue. For those that do: I think the silliest debate arguments are made when weighing, so persuasive comparison goes a long way here because I am probably going to have to do work to resolve this layer. No, "persuasive" does not mean you can say "we outweigh on probability because you know our argument is true in the real world" and call it a day. Link-ins need to be weighed against the original link. Well-executed, nifty weighing is hard, so I will reward it. To me, this tends to be warranted and comparative "link-ins", turns case arguments backed by sound logic and/or evidence, or otherwise generic analysis that is heavily grounded in the context of the debate. I assess probability largely based on if you are winning your link. However, arguments don't start at 100%. You establish probability through evidence and explanation. Probability matters, especially when magnitudes are similar, e.g. extinction. Unfortunately, probability weighing is often just new defense, so call it out. Regardless of the metric, you should attempt to explain why it matters because it reduces intervention on my part, e.g. tell me why I should care that your impact happens faster or is more probable so that I don't have to decide. New weighing in 1FF is fine but earlier is better. It's unlikely that I will do a lot of work for you unless the argument is new in the 2FF/2AR.

Cross ex is binding but you need bring up relevant concessions in a speech (it can be brief, you don't need to waste time re-inventing the wheel). I'll tune in to better understand your arguments.

Extensions are a yes/no question. Extend, yes, but it's not as important to me as it is to others. I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. I won't go fishing for details nowhere in the last speech but present in previous ones. If something is conceded, my threshold for extending drops significantly (though, again, effort could be useful). Nit-picky details only become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically, there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.

If you want to read a complex/wacky scenario, just be read to defend and explain it (especially the latter). You'd be surprised at how often you can win rounds on "untrue" arguments, so it's disappointing to hear such arguments read solely for comedic effect. Being strategic and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

Well-warranted impact turns are often strategic: democracy, growth, food prices, climate change, disease, etc. Please supplement these with impact defense and interact with your opponent's impact evidence/explanation if you go this route. Note that I will not vote for straight up "death good"; arguments like spark are still fine.

Link turns without uniqueness are defense. Uniqueness responses can zero a turn's offense, but remember that the "turn" then becomes defense. Even then, generally speaking, link > uniqueness.

~~PF~~

Framing: util is my default. I am familiar with SV, Kant, extinction, etc. Extinction stuff is probably the easiest to argue, so if you are going to read something other than util, don't be overly generic with warrants and/or explanation. Conceding framing is not a round-ending issue; your opponents can still link and outweigh. You can make framing arguments as "weighing" in summary but I will probably dismiss them if there is a compelling response about why that's too late.

Second rebuttal must frontline. I'll give second summary some leeway spinning frontlines.

Defense is not sticky unless you let it be. I have a low threshold for summary extensions of arguments that are flat out dropped in second rebuttal. If 1FF extends something not in summary but previously dropped, 2FF still needs to call it out. If there was a response and 1FF does not address it, I just won't evaluate the argument - if you want to be comprehensive, tell me to look at my flow and briefly reiterate the response.

In a perfect debate, I think that the second speaking team should win. I recognize that late-breaking spin can be annoying but also very persuasive when done effectively. I will flow FFs most intently and try my best to protect 1FF. This does not mean you can leave the door open for 2FF and expect me to shut it.

PF evidence exchange: I will cap speaker points if you choose not to send docs. A doc without cards is not a doc. If you send speech docs AND nothing is paraphrased, your floor for speaker points will be pretty high barring blatant disrespect, bad evidence ethics, prep stealing, any form of cheating, etc. Bad in-round strategy will not cause you to go below the floor. Use Tabroom, speech drop, or ideally an email chain. Do not send links to google docs, especially if you intend on disabling the option to copy and/or download. Long evidence exchanges are a huge pet peeve. The quicker and smoother the round, the better (for your speaker points too). Marking docs doesn't require prep. Using accessible formatting on verbatim or sending rhetoric versions of blocks/cases is fine so long as they are accompanied by cards that match.

I encourage you to stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is clipping or violating NSDA evidence rules (fabrication, straw-manning, ellipses, etc.). If there is a rule against something and you are not willing to stake the round, it will be difficult to convince me that the practice merits a loss. That said, rules are a still a floor, not a ceiling.

You can always chose to read new evidence to answer an argument made in the speech prior.

PF is a rapidly changing event. As such, I like to reward innovation. Even small displays of creativity can go a long way. There's a difference between creativity and stupidity.

~~"Progressive" Debate~~

This is usually a bigger gamble than substance. Tech/truth stuff still largely applies but with far more exceptions and intervention than you might like.

Theory: I prefer binary debates over semantical ones. I do not love theory debates and do not evaluate them rigidly. I will ask myself: "Is X practice enough for Y team to lose the round?"Using theory as a crutch will lower speaker points. In elimination rounds especially, you have to win substantial offense to convince me that it is more important than substance. Substance crowd-out is absolutely an impact and one that I will implicitly consider. Lack of a CI is not always round-ending, especially if you plan on impact turning the shell; I will simply assume that you are defending the violation/status quo. Defaults: spirit over text, reasonability > CI, yes OCIs (non-negotiable), no RVIs (a turn or anything of the sort is not an RVI), DTA, DTD doesn't need to be explicitly said or extended - a warrant for why something is a voter/reject the team/debater is sufficient.

Paraphrasing is bad. It will be hard to convince me otherwise. I will not directly penalize you for paraphrasing if it is not an issue in the round or unless evidence is egregiously misrepresented, in which case speaker points will suffer and you may lose. If I am on a panel, I understand why you would paraphrase but it's still not an excuse for bad evidence. Bracketing can be just as bad as paraphrasing. If you bracket, do so in good faith. If there is a theory debate, intent will probably skew my perception. The only difference with paraphrasing in terms of penalization is if there is clearly excessive bracketing then I will decrease speaker points and call you out.

Disclosure is good and open-sourcing is too. I do not think OS qualifies as semantical. If you read disclosure without open-sourcing, it will definitely be a harder sell. More broadly, reading disclosure with bad disclosure practices is a colossal risk.

You should probably read a Content Warning to be safe (definitely if it's something graphic) but I do not personally think that the absence of a CW should be an in-round voting issue and opt-outs definitely aren't.

I do not love IVIs (short procedural arguments are different) but will vote on them if they are presented as a complete argument and won. If the abuse is clear and obvious, an "IVI" will suffice.

Ks: Err on the side of over-explanation; the team introducing the K has a higher burden of proof in PF because there is no rejoinder. Be very clear on what voting for you does, especially if non-T, in which case I require a very explicit link and solvency. If the K is not about something your opponents read/did, I will be tempted to vote on no link arguments or links of omission bad. "Conceding" the text of a ROB does not mean the round is over: creative weighing under a conceded ROB is welcome. I would not suggest reading PF-esque identity or discourse-oriented arguments with me judging (this does not mean I will hack against them). In PF, I default yes alts/neg fiat but am personally inclined to believe the rules create tension with alts/neg fiat. I will evaluate topical Ks as a more nuanced contention/turn. Ontology claims need to be implicated to matter. I am familiar with nearly all response strategies, so address Ks however you'd like. In PF especially, I think testing Ks from different angles, including less conventional procedural arguments, is good.

I will never vote for call-outs, ad-homs, or arguments based on things outside of the round that are non-verifiable (I think disclosure is different but not all circumstances surrounding it). If there is an in-round issue, that's a different story.

No tricks.

~~After Round~~

I will disclose who I voted for unless there is a rule against it. If you don't want a verbal RFD or don't get one for some reason, there will always be some explanation on the ballot.

Speaker points are my decision (I will not give everyone 30s because you asked) but I will try to standardize them as much as possible. I will base speaker points off of the event norms, strategy, coherence, argument quality, whatever the increments are, type of tournament, and tournament scale (if there is one). Also, include a seal emoji in you doc and/or the email chain for a bump.

Post-round/ask questions. Doing so is educational, holds judges accountable, and makes debate more transparent. Being upset is fine, just don't make it personal.

Hii I’m Emilio Clear Springs 25’

email : emiliogarza525@gmail.com

broke at a couple bid tournaments and made it to a bid round then flopped LMAO

Quick Pref

1. Performance/k affs/k/t/ - kvk kvlarp kvt
2. Larp(trad is ok)/High Theory k/Identity Tricks (DO THEM RIGHT). - larpvlarp
3. Theory (not friv)
4. Theory (friv)
5. /Strike Tricks / phil
6. /Strike Bad impact turns (cap good/heg good etc)

Pf-

Uhhh i forgot to add a section for this everything in ld applies to this speed is fine pls give me some nice prog rounds but trad is also fine ig tech > truth tho

update 4 freshman death match - DONT FILL THE ROUND WITH 4 theory shells…. please……. also if you run theory do it right… same if you run a k… pls weigh theory vs substance or wtv it’s against i beg

Performance/K affs

Every circuit round I did (on aff) was a k aff or performance I have a low threshold for performances or k affs that do nothing (most debate bad sadly)I love most performances even a little related to the topic is probably better..! Don’t get me wrong i do love debate bad affs and ran a few but pls do something and don’t lose to presumption and make me sad

survival strats good…. debate the activity is good / the community is prob racist / spirit murder is real

beat case 1st so you actually get impacts challenge… also pls don’t lose to cap k perms are probably rly easy for most lit bases

T vs Performance/k affs

Don’t get me wrong i hate the feds! But t debates can be fun.. Best strat is impact turn + one or two das and cross apply them!!!

fairness isn’t rly an impact vs hispanic/black/native debaters bc debate is structural unfair/racist but i won’t make an arg for it if they respond! other than that fairness is probably an internal link to education

tva - best strat especially w cards (THAT MAKE SENSE OMG)

ssd - most of the time flop but wtv ig

best 2nr is 2 most undercovered standards + tva (unless proven wrong)+ case

K

Every round i’ve been neg was usually 1 off k (setcol <3) I know setcol, chicana fem, chican/o in general, afro pess / most anti-blackness lit, qpess (BAD), disability pess, indigenous/afro futurism …… I usually find non idpol ks boring but still love to listen tbh

Non-native setcol/ non-black afro pess is problematic but i’m open if u can explain well… reps vs them (ESPECIALLY FOR WHITE PPL) usually turn case honestly! but i’ll lower speaks if u butcher the lit

Links prob have to be specific but idrc.. omission and things like it r fine but probably lose easily

Alts prob should do something (refuse is something) death drive isn’t!!

I HATE QPESS i think it’s whiteness at its worse eldoldman (wtv his name is) is bad but will still vote on it if ran w/o bad authors <3

overview w embedded clash / line by line are both good with me

k tricks are funny and will vote on them - floating pik etc

Death good turns s tier strat omg (fr)

Larp

Larp is cool give me a fw tho!!

3+ condo cp/pic mixture is probably abusive and loses to condo

Spark is cool also

pls weigh

Theory/friv

to check abuse is good

pls weigh/gave paradigm issues

disclosure vs queer / black / indigenous/ hispanic debates is probably bad

friv theory is bad and if your opponent responds w no i’ll be fine with it

spec rob / method is good vs kaffs and performances if there is abuse

Phil/tricks

pls don’t make me judge i cry more mad more i hate phil more than tricks bc white old racist ppl..!

it identity tricks are cool tho (testing not needed etc)

Other stuff

Tech> Truth (in most cases)

Speaks - start at 28.5 go up or down 25 if u racist or a bad person ong - speaks are impacted by args made / strat / then how u speak

Miss gendering is rly bad - will auto drop if asked - if not asked 26 max speaks then second time i’ll drop u personally <3

If u actually apologize and fr mean it then concede the round i’ll give u a 29 and your opp a 30 bc u conceded and realize it was bad

Debate good and have fun!

PF:

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

Non-negotiables:

Respect your opponents and their identities

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

Please for the love of god have cut cards

Overview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory

Feel free to run, I feel comfortable evaluating it.

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

K's

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

In PF "reject the aff/reject the resolution" can be sufficient if explained well as alts.

I like topicality as a response but please read organized shells

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

Judging stuff:

I give what I think are slightly above average speaks

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

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

you can postround me if you want

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

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

Rankings:

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

Coffee > Monster > Red bull > Other energy drink

Cool People

- Samantha Gerber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just be clear and loud

Hi! I currently debate for Monta Vista GT in PF. For other events just treat me like a trad flow.

General things: Be nice to each other and make debate a safe space. You can take a 10-second grace period in all your speeches, I'll stop flowing after. I won't be paying that much attention to cross. I'll disclose after the round unless the tournament is running really behind. Things not responded to in the next speech (save for first constructive) imo are functionally conceded imo.

Speed: PF speed is fine (i can properly flow up till like 250 without a doc), but I probably can't keep up with real spreading absent a doc. This also means no spreading in summary/ff.

Evidence: Speech docs (with cut cards) are great and I will be very happy if you send them before constructive and rebuttal (+.2 speaks for everyone if you do). Please follow NSDA evi guidelines and be ready to produce evi fast (your opps can prep while you find evi). If there are evi issues in the round, alert me to the issue and I will take a look at it.

Rebuttal: Please implicate/weigh turns so I know how to evaluate them in the context of the round. Second Rebuttal needs to frontline all defense on anything they want to go for and any turns on other args (or concede defense to kick them).

Back Half: Extensions need to be complete w/ card names, uniqueness, link, internal links, and impacts. Please collapse in summary, it makes everyone's lives easier! Defense isn't sticky and your summary/ff need to be consistent.

Prog stuff:

If you are reading prog stuff please send the text of the off before the speech you read it in. I will NOT evaluate any "we didn't learn K/theory debate so its exclusionary" esque arguments, it incentivizes horrible norms and if you are in Varsity you have to understand that you will hit these arguments.

Important note on RVIs: It is my personal belief that RVIs do not extend to offensive counter interps. Even if you win no RVIs, if your opp proves that their counter-interp is a better norm for debate with offensive reasons to prefer it, I would be very inclined to vote for it.

Theory is chill, my partner and I frequently read/debate these arguments so I love evaluating a good theory debate. PLEASE COLLAPSE on a few standards/voters towards the back half and actually weigh like you would in a substance-type round (esp if there are multiple offs involved!!). My personal beliefs are disclo good (OS PLEASE) and para bad. Round Reports are meh. Although these are my personal opinions, I will evaluate whatever shells/CIs you read, however, in a close round, I will most likely lean towards these things. I do HATE friv theory tho so the bar for responses is really low and you will probs get your speaks dropped.

Some things I consider friv (in PF especially): disclose rfds, positively worded interps, other obviously dumb interps.

Kritiks are interesting to me, I've written some Ks/read some of the literature, but don't have much experience evaluating them, so keep that in mind if you choose to read them. Please signpost well in these rounds, especially if there are multiple offs involved.

lincoln east '24 | 3 bids my junior year + 18th at nats

important stuff bolded

send all docs to epicgamermoment123123@gmail.com

---tldr---

water finds the path of least resistance, just assume i woke up at 8am and showed up to the round. make me vote with the route that is the least amount of work for me

---regular preferences---

debate is a game

tech > truth (unless it's blatant)

flow > lay (if u spread send speech doc)

clarity > speed (5 impact scenarios won't make sense compared to a well explained one)

resolve clashing link-ins and prerequisites

---prog preferences---

frivolous theory doesn't exist -- if it's bad you should be able to beat it

disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, round reports good

competing interps > reasonability

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

Background: I'm currently a senior at Basis Independent McLean. I'm not a prolific national circuit debater, but I've had success on the regional level.

TLDR: As long as you're not being racist, sexist, homophobic, or any of the ists/ics, Tech > Truth. If you do do any of the ists/ics, I will drop you immediately with the lowest amount of speaker points that Tabroom allows me to. I like weighing, ill evaluate prog and I enjoy a good framing debate. Im not good for spark or trix. If you run either of those consistently strike me. 50/50 chance I adapt on a lay panel. Really just depends on my mood. Basically do whatever u want.

Content Warnings:

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

Prep Time:

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

Evidence:

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

Speeches:

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

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

Rebuttal:

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

1st Rebuttal:

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

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

2nd Rebuttal:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've 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.

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.

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.

Final Focus:

Everything in Final Focus should have been in Summary.

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

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

Framing:

I like a good framing debate. I won't accept "Other team has to respond in their constructive" or "Other teams can't read link ins to the framing" as underviews or general responses. Youre just avoiding clash at that point. Grow up.

Theory:

I'll evaluate disclo, trigger warning and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions tho. Don't run stuff like disclo or paraphase on novices either - I don't think its that big a deal for them and u can always inform them out of round. I'm not evaluating friv theory. I default to competing interps / yes RVIs.

K's:

I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. I will vote for things I'm ideologically opposed to (like cap good) if the warranting is sufficient. Just win the flow. Don't run Afropess if you're not black, don't run Fem Rage if you're not female - identifying. Doing those is kinda weird.

Spark:

No.

Presumption:

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

Speaks:

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

Postrounding:

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

Good luck, have fun, and do your best!

slide the right slide to the left criss cross

roydebate2@gmail.com

send any questions to that email for pre or post round questions

Extemp:

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

Yes email chain:kiharakimani61@gmail.com

About me:

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

Judging Rubric :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former PF debater for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020-2023)

I'll evaluate any argument as long as it's warranted (with a few exceptions)

I have zero tolerance for any bigoted behavior

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

Round:

1. Assume I’m always ready

2. Flex prep and open cross are fine

3. Don't give me voters. Follow an "our case, their case" structure in summary and final

4. Collapse strategically. There's no way you're getting above a 28.5 if you go for every argument

5. Speed is fine in constructive and rebuttal assuming you send docs and read actual taglines ("Thus, Card 23 says..." is NOT a tag), but please go slower in summary and final focus. Spreading in the back half is risky because I might miss some of what you're saying or end up paraphrasing you poorly on my flow.

Tech:

1. Defense isn’t sticky

2. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3. Extend link and impact in summary and final (or the offense is dropped)

4. No new arguments after 1st summary. No new weighing after 1st final

5. No offense = I presume 1st speaking team (can be changed with warrants)

6. No weighing = I intervene for highest magnitude impact

Theory is fine but:

1. Must be in shell format

2. Must be read immediately after the violation

3. I will probably intervene against friv theory

4. I won’t evaluate RVIs

I have judged a few K rounds before, but I had no experience with them as a competitor. If you're planning on reading a K in front of me, here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. The alternative needs to be super super super clear to me. Who does the alt? How does the alt solve for the impact of the K?

2. Theory uplayers the K (and it's going to be very difficult to convince me otherwise). If you're reading a K, you should be disclosing, sending docs with cut cards, etc.

3. You need to leave a role for your opponents in the debate. If your alternative or role of the ballot can be summed up as "vote for my side" I will find it very very difficult voting for you even if your opponents concede the alt or ROTB.

4. I'm biased towards T. Not because I'm a T hack, but because I understand the warranting a lot better and am far more experienced with evaluating topical debate. If you're responding to T, please slow down and walk me through your arguments carefully.

I won’t evaluate tricks

Speaks start at 30 and decrease by .5 for every major and .1 for every minor mistake in round strategy or clarity

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

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

PF Paradigm 2023

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

David Levin (he/him/his)

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

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

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

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

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

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for the K. i'm a good judge for theory.

General:

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

Housekeeping:

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

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one. No preference for room setup, however, if there is a rocking chair in the room, I reserve claim to it.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant. Critical cases don't need to be read slower, but they often benefit from it.

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

How I flow:

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

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

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

How I evaluate:

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

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

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

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

Crossfire is binding.

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

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

Topical "critical" Cases:

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

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

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

Non-topical criticisms:

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

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

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

"Off-case" Criticisms:

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

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

Policy:

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

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

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

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

hi

add me to the chain: aldaman636@gmail.com

average tech judge, send doc >200 wpm, be clear

make sure you extend all of your arg (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact) and pls weigh

good w theory, bad w ks and trix

presume neg absent offense or other presumption warrants

on a panel don't just drop the lay, it could make the difference if u split the techs

if you get to the round early, play me in chess and ill give you a 30 if you beat me

=============================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

If you're in Novice/JV

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

• constructive: read it; emphasize key points, clarity is key here; no super spreading

• first rebuttal: refute the opponent's case thoroughly, brownie points for rhetoric

• second rebuttal: refute opponent's rebuttal(aka frontlining) + refute their true case

• summaries: explain the arguments that I should vote on in the round, explain why you win them, and weigh impacts. don't try to recap all of your arguments here — pick your strongest one and go for that(collapsing)

• final focus: summary but 2 minutes

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

please ask me any questions you have about debate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

- postround me, it makes me a better judge.

Extra points

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

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

• +0.5 speaks if both sides set up an email chain before the round and use it to call for cards

• +0.5 speaks if both sides send each other (and me) all case evidence after reading constructive

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

speaker points

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

- making opponent laugh = 30

- disrespectful behavior = 25.

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

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

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

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

Hi congressmen and congresswoman(debaters),

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

Some notes on how to score well for round integration:

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

Some notes on content:

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

Some notes on delivery:

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

Update for Freshman Deathmatch 5/27/2023: I'm begging you to not read exclusive disclo interps. i.e. full text vs OS, RFDs, or whatever. TBH don't read friv theory on me anymore. I saw too many good teams drop to friv theory at TOC and I originally wrote this paradigm before it. RR theory is still fine, idk why that's called frivolous. If you want to see something like an exclusive disclo interp check the Southlake vs Strake TOC Quarters round on YT. It might just be one of the worst rounds I've ever seen (Flower Mound takes the cake tho). I will hack against frivolous disclosure interps but I won't hack against friv theory in general. Just know my threshold for responses is very low. It's sad that I have to say this now.

Hello! I'm vedant (vuh-dahnt). I've debated on the natcirc for 2 years and quartered TOC 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 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

*****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 liked running both frivolous and stock shells. 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. Again, from Katheryne Dwyer:"i will still evaluate arguments without jargon. ie "we think disclosure is bad for x reasons" is the same as a counter interp to me in this situation. default no RVIs.i will not give you a drop the debater claim if you do not read it, or theory comes first."

• Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly biased and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-assed interp is read because they think they're doing something good. It's sad (esp for small schools). I do ask tho if ur paraphrase tell me beforehand and send the cut card normally + what u read.
• 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.

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.

Think through what you're doing... actually. I've yet to judge a single round where some theory isn't being misunderstood by both sides.

Backfiles won't save you either, they're usually the problem source.

SPEAKS:

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

1. Good basketball joke/analogy. I was surprised to see Alec Boulton with a pretty similar speaks chart. If you talk about glorious king LeBron Lakers, auto 30. (russ jokes don't count anymore :(. )
2. If you read 4 mins of impact turns or 4 min of j turns in 2nd constructive auto 29.5 (30 if u read an impact turn I haven't heard of yet)
3. If you turn in your chair or standing up when ur reading a turn
4. If you make a good cricket joke/analogy. Call me Indian as hell (true tbh) but I rly like cricket. My fav players are myotherglorious king Kohli, LeSuryaKumar Yadav, Sachin Tendulkar, and Chris Gayle.
5. Hip-Hop references. My fav artists are Gambino, Outkast, Travis Scott, Kanye, Biggie, Tyler, the Weeknd, and so many more. auto 30 for a good ref.
6. Making jokes in cross (auto 28.5). 26 if they're corny tho.
7. Be nice/ don't be not nice. Be competitive, just not rude/condescending. Even if you're hitting the worst arg in the history of args, don't act like your opponent is dumb or something. It's not too hard.
8. Don't steal prep(minus the ev exchanges thing).
9. If you read evi, HAVE IT CUT or suffer low speaks, ur opponents having 5 mins of free prep, and a probable L (i wont hack but i'll be in a bad mood)

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

IMPORTANT STUFF:

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

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

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

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

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?

If you can tell me the name of this tour, auto 29:

Overall, to steal from Sully Mrkva: I love debate. Take a deep breath, don’t be aggressive, and have some fun dawgs - I invested thousands of hours into this activity and know how important it is to some people - I GET YOU - leave it all on the flow and don’t be stupid.

Inesh Nambiar (he/him) GWU '27

inesh1715@gmail.com add me on linkedin

Bold = tldr

speed is fine send doc or speak clear

chill w prog (offcase) but don't spread I’ll throw my pen and scream

actually convince me if u rly wanna lol

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

don't get canceled anywhere near my round I'll testify for the ACLU

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

troll args get 30s lmfao

offensive args = L obvi

flexprep, give me a good ff

tagteam cross idc u hv choice in strat

gl hv fun

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

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

AddjpotooleDB@gmail.comfor docs/chains

Did 4 years of PF at Newsome (‘23)

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

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

PF

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

Flow Paradigm

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

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

Mavericks get 6 mins prep

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

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

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

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

Speeches

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

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

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

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

Prog Stuff

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

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

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

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

Hall of Fame

x

x

x

x

x

For me, Speaking is a hobby and I love listening to various speeches too.

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.

Glenbrooks Update:

1. Set up the chain BEFORE you come into round

2. Send constructive and rebuttal docs with cards to both emails before you read them

3. High bar for progressive stuff other than paraphrasing and non-semantical disclosure theory. Let's have some fire substance debates wooooo

* * * * *

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.

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

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

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

Substance:

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

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

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

K:

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

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

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

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

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

CPs:

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

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

FW:

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

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

Tricks:

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

GOATs:

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

Presumption:

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

Speaks:

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

Fun Stuff:

1. Block 30s if the round ends in < 45 min

2. Block 30s if both teams agree to 0 minutes of prep time

3. Block 30s if both teams agree to have a Clash Royale match to determine the winner

4. Auto 30s if second constructive is exclusively impact turns

5. Auto 30 if you use a nuanced poker analogy in the round (high bar, make this good if you attempt)

6. Min 29.3s if everyone agrees to have a lay round (I am an excellent lay judge)

Roast Zaid Vellani on Facebook Messenger (show me the screenshot) for a speaks bump.

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

—WP

I am getting better at flow debate but I can still make good decisions

TLDR: I'm a tech judge. I'll evalutate K's, theory, framework, and to some extent Trix

(He/Him/His)

I'm a junior at Bronx Science and have been doing PF for the past 3 years.

In terms of "tech vs. truth." Tech matters, but when issues are closely contested I err towards intuitive and well-explained arguments, or am willing to give leeway if there are intuitive ways arguments interact. Also I think all judges have bias. I have bias. I will try my best to recuse my bias and be as tech as possible.

Safety > Tech > Truth

Don't misgender you opponents. Pretty Simple.

NO POST ROUNDING, you can ask for feedback but I'm not interested in you telling me every point in your case and how you should have won.

Racism, Xenophobia, or any bigoted arguments will not be tolerated. Auto L - 25

My Email: Sinanr2@nycstudents.net

My Insta: @Sinanroumie

//**Novice & General**//

- If there is no comparative I tend to default to least mitigated link > Greatest impact unless that impact is extinction

- I advise collapsing but to each their own

- ALWAYS Extend the argument you are collapsing on

- If you collapse on an argument and try to rehash an old arg in the next speech, girl what are you doing.

- WEIGH as early as you can (please do comparative weighing. For meta weighing, it needs to be interactive and warranted instead of just saying "prefer probability over magnitude")

- Defense is NOT sticky. Always extend defense you want me to evaluate.

- Give an off-time road map AND STICK TO IT. Def still signpost but just know before your speech I expect an off-time roadmap

- I almost always presume NEG unless the resolution makes AFF the Squo

Other in-round stuff:

- Please CUT YOUR CARDS, if you say " Command-F it" I'm giving you 25 speaks

- Graphic arguments should prob have content warnings and anonymous opt-outs. Non-graphic descriptions of issues like discrimination i.e. sexism/racism do not need them. For structural violence, thats up to your discretion. I personally have no triggers so there will be no judge intervention on my part, however I will evaluate CW theory. (Check theory section for more elaboration)

- I'll pay some attention during cross for fun, but anything said in cross should be brought up in a speech if you want it to be evaluated.

- I'm fine to skip grand cross for 1 min of prep if both teams agree.

- I'm fine with an open cross

- You can go 5-10 seconds overtime but I'll stop flowing after.

- I don't care if you read disads/turn dump in second rebuttal

- I don't care if you curse as long as your not verbally abusive or mean. Don't abuse this.

Speaker point boosts:

- Saying "Judge, Be Fucking For Real" while probability weighing = +1

- Spin around every time you say "turn" = +1

- Playing a bruh sound effect while someone is talking in crossfire = +0.1

- How to get an auto 30 (ALL MUST BE COMPLETED AND VERIFIABLE):

1. Send me a screen recording of you sending a voice message to @samzaino_ singing the song "Dangerous Woman" by Ariana Grande
2. Send @dashasm1rnova --TBD
3. Send an amazon link of olaplex to @marinagallo_ with the message "Stop the straights"

//**Varsity ONLY **//

Progressive arguments:

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

- I'm fine with speed and to some extent spreading, but I find that in PF people spread very poorly. If you're going to spread you better be the clearest spreader ever or else I won't be able to eval the round to your liking. For reference 250wpm + and I will require a speech doc.

- I'm decently comfortable evaluating theory, framing, and K's, but please explain them thoroughly like how you would to someone who has no idea what you're talking about.

- Feel free to run progressive arguments on newbies, I think its funny and people learn how to these debate arguments when exposed them ( I WILL NOT EVALUATE PROG IN NOVICE PRELIMS {I'll make an exception if i am judging elim rounds})

[Theory]:

• misgendering theory is the only theory which I 100% believe in.
• In terms of content warnings I think they are good. That being said I'm not opposed to someone running CWs bad. Don't abuse this.
• I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is fine, but still down to vote on Disclo bad and para bad.
• Friv is fine but I'm not the best theory debater so understand that I prob won't be the best to eval it
• Hot take: I think baiting theory is fine. Its a real strat. if you read baiting theory as a warrant for No RVIs I'll eval it but i don't like it.
• I usually give RVIs, but once again tech > truth.

[Framing]:

• I'm chill with frame work, especially Structural violence or Fem
• I might not be able to eval frameworks like Deontology like you want me too just because I’m not familiar with the warrants but I will try my best.

[K's]:

• In regards to PF standards I am a pretty okay K judge. That being said I'm more experienced with lit like securitization, orientalism, and cap
• For more complex lit like afropessism, setcol, or high theory I might not be your guy. I can def evaluate i've personally have had 0 experience with it and would need you to explain you literature more.

[K AFF's]:

• Topical affs are cool, Non topical affs are also cool.
• Please please please have a topic link. Too many affs now adays don't have topic links and while thats fine it would make adjudicating so much easier.
• Please only read a K aff if you are good at debating it. I run them myself and have a high threshold for them

[Trix]:

• I am not experienced with trix, so if you want to run it, do it at your own risk. Trix that are okay: Interpreting words in the resolution differently, coming up with a crazy argument. Trix that are not okay: IDK, i've never seen one run but like probably ones where u spread and make no sense.

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

- Please send a doc!

History: I'm currently a junior at Ravenwood and I've debated on the local and national circuits for the last two years. I've accumulated 4 bids to the Tournament of Champions since freshman year.

Contact Info: kaushik.sathiya3@gmail.com. Add me to the email chain and all docs sent in the round. You can also email me before round with any questions.

Tech > Truth.

General Info:

Come preflowed to round.

I require docs for any speeches that are faster than 225 words per minute.

Just let me know where you're starting; I don't need a full roadmap.

Don't read anything new after first summary, unless it's second summary weighing.

Evidence:

Make evidence exchange quick. If evidence exchange takes longer than a few minutes, I'll be unhappy.

Rebuttal:

Read anything that you want.

If you're second rebuttal, frontline every argument that you're going to go for in the back half completely. This includes defense. Feel free to begin collapsing as well.

Summary:

Extend every part of every argument that you're going to go for. This includes uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. Extensions like "Extend Hoskins 21" doesn't mean anything.You have to explain the warranting behind the evidence. I will not vote on any argument that is not fully extended.

Make your weighing comparative. If there's a lot of weighing in-round, make sure to meta-weigh to tell me what the most important weighing mechanism is.Make sure to respond to all weighing in-round. Otherwise, I'll have to intervene and you might not like the decision that I make.

Presumption:

I will try and never presume. However, if there's no offense in the round, I will presume the first speaking team.

Progressive Argumentation:

I do not have much experience with progressive debate. If you read it, know that there is a good chance that I make the wrong decision and that you may be unhappy.

Speaks:

I typically start speaks at 28. If you throw in a Kanye or Carti lyric, I'll give you a 30.

Senior at Edina.

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

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

I avoid reading evidence. Please debate well so I don't have to. If I end up having to look at evidence, you may not like your speaker points or the decision.

Speed annoys me, I will clear you. If you ignore clears, I am significantly less likely to vote for you.

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.

responses, especially in rebuttal must have warrants. if they don't, i must just not flow them.

LARP

tech>truth

collapse

uniqueness>>>>>link

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

send docs with all evidence, i don't want to read your evidence but evidence exchange without docs is so unnecessary and takes so long. failure to do this will result in a speaks cap at 26.

Theory

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

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

obnoxiousness is a voter.

K

I'm comfortable with most lit people read in PF. feel free to ask me before the round if i know who your authors are/what they say etc. if you are reading complex/ stuff that is new to me, slow down.

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.

because i'm a judge now, i get to intervene. if you read terf/swerf lit, racist authors, or anything else discriminatory/exclusionary/problematic, expect an L25

tricks

if you want to ig

speaks

I give really good speaks or really bad speaks.

Guide to getting good speaks:

1. Block 30s if the round ends in < 45 min (I'm so serious about this)

2. Block 30s if both teams agree to 0 minutes of prep time

3. Block 30s if If both sides agree to settle the debate with a mutually agreed upon test/competition of strategy or skill (chess, clash royale 2v2s, typing tests)

4. +1 Speaks if second constructive is exclusively impact turns (death good, wipeout, cc good, spark)

5. Auto 30 if you make a good Olivia Rodrigo reference (high bar, make this good if you attempt)

6. +1 Speaks if you agree to skip crossfires.

*For time purposes, I underlined/bolded the most important things*

Pronouns: (he/him/his)

Hey y'all!

I am a flow judge, so I focus on the flow and the arguments extended and dropped. However, I do appreciate the big picture because that, overall, clears things up. I am the S in Lambert KS

Hard Rules:

1. No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, disclosing the wrong aff, lying about your disclosure, etc.

2. Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. That means no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Everybody must stay comfortable during the debate.

Violations of either are grounds for auto-loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give you

---

~Speaking: Ok, here is the deal. If you spread it may be somewhat hard to keep up. If you see me drop my writing utensil, it means that you are speaking way too fast. I'll also yell "clear" if you don't notice.

I encourage enthusiasm rather than speaking monotone. Monotone results in you for speaker points being as high as 26. If you don't weigh your impacts, you won't be able to get higher than 28 speaker points and will most likely lose the round. (Unless the other team does the same thing)

<26 means you were offensive/rude

26.1-26.9 means you need improvement and/or probably dropped case

27-27.9 means you probably missed things on the flow and might have made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round.

YOU CANNOT GET HIGHER THAN A 28 FROM ME IF YOU FORGET TO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ME.

28-28.9 means you are a good debater, probably can break at the tournament given pairings and other factors; you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing.

29-29.7 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, and, more importantly, you break away from weighing in a vacuum to comparative weighing.

29.8-30 are rarely given out. You made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy.

~Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal is obliged to frontline turns. If you don't, the opponent must call it out for me to make it a voter. However, please try to frontline everthing

~Summary/FF: Do what you want. Make it more big picture tho. Also, defense is not sticky

~Weighing: Please weigh impacts!! I care far less about buzzwords than teams making a comparison between link/impact stories. Try to start weighing in rebuttal.

~Importance of Weighing

- Pre-Req>Timeframe

- Timefram>Prob

- Prob>Mag

*IMPORTANT: Unless if you can prove me that your impact weighing is better than theirs or you do comparative weighing, the order doesn't matter.*

~Crossfire: BE Calm. I do like clash and poking holes into the other team's arguments. I will be paying attention, but it won't affect my decision.

~Paraphrasing: Please try to read CUT CARDS. I will not vote you down if you paraphrase, but I will be unhappy. (This also includes your rebuttal speech).

~Evidence. Any evidence violation outlined in section 7.2 of the HS Unified Manual is grounds for me to give you a loss and nuke your speaker points, based on section 7.4. Here is a list of common evidentiary practices in PF that will result in this outcome

• Sending a link to a piece of evidence rather than a cut card in an email chain (and, in a related vein, telling your opponent to “ctrl-f” anything in a PDF or a website).
  
  

• Not including a citation when you send your opponent a random piece of evidence in an email chain (accidents are fine, but if you’re just sending a chunk of text without a citation and you don’t correct it if asked, no). A citation includes everything in section 7.1.C of the rules.
  
  

• Taking more than a minute to produce a piece of evidence. Obviously, this can fluctuate if the opponent calls for a lot of cards
  
  

If this happens for the first time, I'll just drop the argument. if it happens for the second time, I'll drop you. good norms is cool.

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

Extra Info:

- In my opinion, the summary is by far the most important speech in a debate

- I like indicts, so do it if you can. lol

- Sticky defense is bad (boohoo)

- Please do NOT call for like 20 cards. You don't need this. I know you just want free prep

- Turns are useless with at least a link and an impact. Turns with a uniqueness make it a lot better. If you do this, then you are a good debater. Also, if you spam turns, I get unhappy.

- Creative arguments I like – stupid ones I don’t. If you find a quality card that makes a unique argument, I’ll be a fan. If you’re stretching together a couple of words from 4 different blogs to make a unique argument, I will not be a fan.

- Read content/trigger warnings before reading something that could be potentially uncomfortable for opponents, and PLEASE CHANGE YOUR CASE IF YOUR OPPONENTS DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE CASES. This also applies to all the other speeches (rebuttal, summary, final focus). If you don't comply, then I will dock your speaks + auto drop you.

- I'm cool with framing and the "stockish" theories. I don't have as much experience with Kritik's though. However, I HATE Friv Theory, so don't run it. If one team brings up a theory argument in the round, then I will automatically look to that first (I don't care how wack it is). However, if I believe the theory debate is a wash, then I'll just be a normal tech judge who looks down the flow and see what arguments are the cleanest.

- No Tricks. Please.

- If you see me nodding my head, it doesn't mean that you made a good argument. I just do it because I feel like it. Don't take it into account.

- In all, be independent/responsible through the debate. I will be keeping time, but I also expect you to keep your own speech and prep time. Just let me know when you start/stop prep and don't go over the time limit, etc. I dislike it when debaters try to steal prep. I trust all of you debaters and good luck in your round!

- IDC about post rounding. If you think you got judge screwed, then tell me.

- +0.2 for disclosure OR sending a speech doc before both rebuttal and constructive, +0.2 for no paraphrasing

Good Luck Debaters!

Hey! I'm William (he/him). I primarily do LD and WSD. I used to do PF.

Speechdrop is easier but email chain is more convenient for card stealing so you do you.

Email: trinhwilliam258@gmail.com

Some of my biggest influences on me as a debater include but are not limited to Vaishal Sivamani, Sim Low, Lydia Wang, Amanda Ciocca, Sebastian Cho, Holden Bukowsky, and Joshua Cauley.

TLDR:

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

Go as fast as you want. Just be clear. I will not flow from the speech doc.

Do not commit any of the isms.

PF at the bottom.

LD Prefs:

1: Policy or Kritikal Arguments. T (of all types) Phil v Phil

2: Clash rounds

2/3: Tricky Phil! (Indexicals and hidden Skep triggers are <3333) Hiding the resolved apriori on line 10 on the Kant Syllogism is :(

4: Dense Theory Shells/Trix

Defaults:

Competing Interps, DTD, No RVI

Permissibility and Presumption Negate

Comparative Worlds

Policy Arguments:
Unlike what many presume, I actually really enjoy these debates. Some of my favorite debates to listen to are big stick policy affirmatives vs an Advantage Counterplan+Disad or a Disad+Case 2NR.

There is indeed a chance of zero risk of an advantage/disadvantage. I am waiting for the day where somebody stands up for 7 minutes for the 1NC and reads straight case (no not impact turns, though I would also enjoy impact turn debates). I will happily award 30 speaker points if you win.

Competition debates are incredibly messy and confusing and just devolve into teams throwing gibberish on the wall and hoping it sticks. Please slow down and articulate what your model of CP competition is and why its better than your opponents.

You must send perm texts. I don't mean "Perm do both" I mean the actual text of the permutation that includes the plan text+ of whatever you are trying to permute. Otherwise I will be receptive to a 2NR that goes "They didn't send a perm text, and they haven't proved why the Counterplan isn't textually competitive."

While I will do my best to not intervene, here are some of my thoughts that I may conclude in an even debate.

Conditionality is good. I am however more than happy to vote for a 2AR on Conditionality.

Counterplans with a solvency advocate are theoretically legitmate

Counterplans without evidence are theoretically legitimate (but substantively questionable. Come on just rehighlight 1AC evidence).

Counterplans only need to be functionally competitive or competitive via net benefits

Actor (International/Domestic), Consult, and Process CPs are theoretically legitimate.

Severance or intrinsicness (in LD) is bad but a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

1AR Add-On Advantages are bad. (Hence my opinion for intrinsicness being bad)

Kritikal Debate:

Yes. Do it. The majority of my 2NRs this year have been on the Kritik (mostly vs Kritikal or soft left affirmative).

The words "pre/post fiat" have zero meaning to me. The distinction is not real.

The negative should prove the aff is a bad idea. What the aff is though is completely up for debate. I will vote for one team's interpretation and not create some wonky middle ground (unless you instruct me to).

Please for the love of god explain what the hell you are saying. Assume I know nothing about your theory of power, I will not fill in the gaps.

I am great for K debaters with solid links to core concepts of the 1AC. I am terrible for generic links that aren't properly contextualized.

I am fine with whatever 2NR strategy you decide to adopt, though I am much better for a solid link turns case+alt solves case push than I am for "you link you lose."

Good 2ARs vs the Kritik should commit to one strategy. Impact turns/K Thesis false or Extinction Outweighs+a robust defense of fairness/scenario planning are very compelling and will garner massive respect.

Phil v K Debates

I find these debates very interesting but frustrating to resolve. I find it particularly difficult to beat back Phil ACs without either a) beating the AC Syllogism on the LBL (at this point just read a Phil NC) or b) winning an incredibly broad sweeping claim about the world that disproves the AC syllogism. I am particularly persuaded by the bindingness permutation on the aff but also very persuaded by arguments that say ideal theory is bad and the alt itself is enough of an ethical paradigm. Take that how you will.

Theory:

Don't have much thoughts here. Do whatever. I am willing to vote on a myriad of things such as non resolutional theory bad, new affs bad, DTA, the RVI, reasonability etc. Just slow down and I will be happy.

Topicality (vs Policy Affs)
I agree with Holden 99% on these debates. These debates are wonderful and I want to judge them more. I like it when teams have definitions that are grounded within topic literature (intent to define, intent to include/exclude, etc). Weighing between predictability and limits would really be beneficial. If you want an example for a great 2NR on T, search up Brophy TJ vs Isidore Newman EE Round 5 of the TOC 2023. If left to my own devices, I will conclude predictability>limits and that evidence with an intent to include does not now exclude affs that aren't included in the definition (unless there are arguments about how the 1AR's evidence has criminally worse qualifications).

Nebel-T is a good argument if you go for semantics. it is a terrible argument if you go for limits. While I will evaluate these debaters however you tell me, I will prefer a semantics 2NR.

Phil Rounds:

UPDATE: For pre-round Strat, I am better at evaluating AC/NC strats than I am for NC v Policy Affs. Extinction outweighs while boring, is a good argument and you should go for it if you’re comfortable (sorry Phil teams!)

I actually really enjoy these rounds. In a world where LD is becoming one man policy, straight up AC/NC debates are incredibly refreshing. Going AC/NC will garner massive respect and high speaks. Going for util syllogistically instead of the boring "extinction outweighs" is very impressive and will garner high speaks. I just ask you do not spread metaphysics or whatever at 400 WPM at 8 AM in the morning. You need to be explicit and flag arguments.

Extending a syllogism that excludes consequentialism>>>> Calc Indicts

This is my face if the round collapses to calc indicts. :(
Tricky phil is fine! Skep triggers, hidden indexicals, random permissibility triggers are fine. Please do not spread these as if you were spreading a card though. Like please just be clear.

I much prefer "winning offense under one framework means you affirm" indexicals than fricking "I affirm under the index of I want the resolution." If you go for the latter your speaks are capped at a 29.

K Aff v T-Framework

I have been on both sides of these debates and try my best to be impartial as possible. Here are some top level thoughts I have that can be taken out with good debating.

Aff teams need to propose a workable model for debate (or say debate should be destroyed).

Running away from the resolution is bad. The resolution at the very least should be a starting point for a good workable model of debate. What that looks like is up to you.

Bring back fairness 2NRs! No they can not just be "you cheated and you should lose." There needs to be an explanation for why cheating is bad and how it zeros subjectivity offense. Arguments warranted by ballot proximity/competition means we care about fairness and we should strive to protect it are great.

K v K Debates:

I simultaneously love and hate these rounds with a passion. I think I personally lean negative on a lot of different questions such as the legitimacy of the permutation or the "pre/post fiat distinction" (whatever the hell that means) and how negative engagement operates. Some thoughts I have that will reflect probably Sim Low's (check out their paradigm) is that engagement+clash in these debates are good. You are almost never the criticism of the exact same thing. Root cause claims are important to win but also you need to attach reasons as to why your thesis or your model for debate is always going to be opposed to that of the 1AC, whether that be ideology, competitive incentives, etc.

The permutation begs the question of framework. I'm not talking about your impact justified ROTBs, I'm talking about whether debate is space of community building, or whether the 1AC is an object of study. You need to explain what I do with framework (ie if the 2NR wins a link, do I just auto-vote negative now? Or do I grant aff intrinsic permutations??)

Tricks:

I truthfully don't care. Do it, just beware what you start you can't undo.

If your strategy vs K Affs include reading skep+a bunch of aprioris, I am not the judge for you. Will I vote on it? Yes. Will I be angry and is there a chance I mess up because you slurred a bunch of words together? Also yes.

Here's a chart cause I think it's funny

The aff literally does anything -x---------------"X ism is bad."

Straight up clash debate -----x------------Trickery

Voting for policy------x-------Voting for everything else

Time spent in policy ---------x-----Literally everything else

Condo good --x-----------condo bad

Explain the perm in the 1ar/read a card ---x------------------Whatever the hell the DD 1AR doc is.

Hard right aff that defends US Heg, RHAWRRRR ---------x-----------The topic is EVIL and I will be completely untopical

Counter interp+Offense ---x-----------Impact turn everything under the sun.

Fairness is evil -----x----Fairness is the only thing that matters!

PF:

TLDR:

Read whatever the hell you want. Warrant it. Do whatever you want. Defend your norm/model for debate.

UPDATE: Framework Debates:

I am incredibly tired of resolving SV vs Extinction debates. Debaters who defend SV as a framework can not stand up and claim threats are not real without winning that said threats are not real. I would rather listen to or hear probability/timeframe weighing against magnitude weighing than a poorly executed SV strat that is "Ethos my way into making the judge think that the US-China War scenario is fake."

I think 1ACs or Aff constructive in this event should start reading normal means/solvency evidence more often. You don't get a plan text but if you can argue what normal means form of resolutional implementation looks like, you're in a good spot.

Honestly you do you! I am a tech judge at heart but will adapt if need be.

I won't be outspread by you unless you are incredibly fast or incredibly unclear. Speak as fast as you want if you are clear. I refuse to flow off of speech documents. I will shout clear as many times as I need to get you to become clear. If I shout clear 3 times and you are still unclear, I will start tanking your speaks. This has never happened because PF spreading is usually slow and pretty clear but bewarned.

K and Theory debate is fun and good! Do whatever you want! That being said I am open to arguments that say K and Theory debate are bad for PF. Whatever you do should be warranted. For example "The K is bad for PF because PF says no alternative advocacies and we should defend this norm so there's more predictable debates" is an argument I am more than willing to vote for. "The K is bad for PF because the rulebook said so" is not. Rules exist for a reason. Warrant why we should follow them.

Read actual evidence or defend paraphrasing. I won't hack for or against paraphrasing theory. Y'all do the debating.

Clipping is bad. If you read evidence, you should probably not highlight more than what you actually read unless you are willing to defend that you are paraphrasing.

Please send cards in a word doc in the email chain. I promise you I will give you nothing below a 29 if you do this basic practice.

I won't call for evidence unless you ask me to or if the debate comes down to evidence being read within the round.

I am fine with open cross in whatever speech and grand cross being turned into 1 minute of prep. Do whatever you want. I'm fine with it.

Second Rebuttal must frontline, no exceptions

Case/Impact turns are good

Weighing is good. Meta/Comparative weighing is better.

Please collapse and make the round simpler. Extending 2 contentions, in summary, is BAD! Extending one contention, playing defense and telling me a ballot story is good and will result in high speaks.

Defaults are Pre Req>Magnitude>Timeframe>Probability but you can easily change these with a blip of a word.

Presumption negates unless I am told otherwise but I am openly amicable to "presume 1st, presume whoever lost coin toss" or whatever warrant you read.

Southlake Carroll '24

I debate on the nat circuit, where I've top-seeded Emory & TFA State, won Cal State Fullerton & Jasper, semi'd the TOC (not silver ofc) & Blake, have 5 bids, and was ranked top 20 in NDCA rankings.

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

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

TL;DR

Tech > Truth. Go as fast as you want, weigh and warrant well, and have fun. Extend arguments with atleast taglines (I'm not a stickler). First FF may read some weighing, but don't overdo it. Progressive argumentation is good and I can usually evaluate it. Don't be awkward, mean, or problematic.

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

DEBATE IS A GAME

I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as its warranted and not problematic. DAs, impact turns, squirelly contentions - i'm good with them all.

—— GENERAL ——

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

I definitely won't flow and might not listen to cross, if you want me to remember something bring it up in speech. Also skip GCX if everyone agrees, both teams get 1 min of prep time.

Preflow before rounds - let's not waste time.

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

Don't try to hide new defense in"probability weighing".

LINK WEIGHING > IMPACT WEIGHING.

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

You must frontine in second rebuttal and feel free to read whatever offense you want.

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

Smart analytics are great, but don't be too blippy and always back them up with warrants & empirics.

Please label email chains so they're easy to organize. Ex. "UT R5 - Southlake Carroll BY (Aff 1st) vs. Strake Jesuit GH (Neg 2nd).

—— PROGRESSIVE ——

Prefs —

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 2

High Theory - 3

Counterplans - 3

Tricks - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5

Performance - 5

A — THEORY

I really like good theory debates; I run theory quite a lot. Disclosing open-source with round reports is good, but I will vote for anything as long as its won. I won't let my biases affect how I eval theory, so respond however you want. (I will hack for OS though...)

I default to competing interps and no RVIs, but that can change. Reasonability is persuasive but read it in addition to your CI...comparative models of debate are always easier to evaluate.

On friv theory, I'll evaluate it but will have a really low threshold for responses and won't be so rigid with regards to CIs. Shoe and Team Sweater theory is friv, hyper-specific disclosure shells and must not send Google docs are not.

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

B — KRITIKS

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

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

Reject alts and discourse alts are fake, have a real method for change. On that note, I'm pretty flexible with extratopical alternative/method strategies, which I think is needed for a well-executed K in PF. I will still vote on topicality though.

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

Theory uplayers the K but I can be convinced otherwise.

Perm it.

C — FRAMING

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

D — COUNTERPLANS

I've never ran a counterplan but I will evaluate them with a kinda-low theshold for responses. I'm curious as to if things like process CPs are viable in PF, and am yet to find out; I think they could be cool. If you read it, read it well and be prepared for T, and "the NSDA said no."

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

—— EXTRA ——

SPEAKS:

I'm pretty generous with speaks; I'll almost always give atleast a 28.5 as long as you don't do anything offensive. I'll assign them based on clarity, strategy, and humor. If you make the round quick, impress me, and don't do anything stupid, you'll get those 30s.

BOOSTS:

+0.2 if you defend US heg

+0.2 if your cards are in TNR with green highlighting

+0.2 if your wiki is based (round reports + OS)

COOL PEOPLE:

Nikhil Reddy

Anbeast Subramuscleman

Daniel Guo

Jason Zhao

- vy

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

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

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

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

Anukool Joshi's paradigm is this but he ruined it.

• if there are two techs (including me) and one lay, don't drop the lay. It's disrespectful to parents and new judges who donate their time and energy for us.

• That being said for speech prefs, Im cool with you spreading but I can't flow twista and I also want the speech doc.

• I wanna do the least work possible when I judge so can you guys please just weigh for me or else ill make a decision you probably dont like. cleanest link into best impact- be comparative.

• defense isn't sticky, if something is dropped in ANY speech after case (with the exception of case EXTENSIONS for either rebuttal) it is done for the round. For example, if second rebuttal frontlines their C1 and drops all defense on their C2, first summary doesn’t need to worry about their C2 anymore - it’s dropped. (forces a collapse) -New frontlines in second summary won’t be evaluated unless they’re responding to new implications of responses or ‘backlines’

• conceding defense to kick out of turns needs to happen immediately after turns are read and IMPLICATION MUST HAVE WARRANT.

• I can evaluate a theory round (yes rvis) but i debate it better than I judge it. Im not like super familiar with ks especially if they're non topical but I will try my best, honestly run them at your own risk. Also, I encourage you to read theory mainly when there's a genuine issue to resolve or a norm to set, not a silly friv 20off

• I am only timing speeches, im cool with you guys keeping track of your own prep.

• I will actually get upset when it takes longer than like 3 minutes to send in a card

• If your speed causes you to constantly trip over your words or stutter, don't blame me for not accurately guessing what your card says because thats on you. Also i flow whatever I hear and I trust my flow more than i trust you, make sure your warrants are clear.

• be nice guys, especially if you hit lower teams, its just not cool to scare kids into quitting debate, this activity is suppose to facilitate important discussions regarding serious political topics.

• lol no refs are getting your speaks up, 28 for average teams, then we'll see. I like analogies though.

• anything -ist will = auto drop!