pretty bad with extremely high speeds (more than 200ish wpm). Send speech docs if you think they're required, I won't ask for them. Speech docs will hurt your speaks.

tech > truth

prog is fine if you explain it like I’m 5. I probably won’t evaluate friv theory and I don’t even know what tricks are.

Weigh

Meta weigh too

no new weighing in 2ff

Also preflow before the round

Well warranted arguments > a warrantless card you throw at me (Johnson '23 says Russia will invade the US tomorrow because why not)

"don’t snowball fight with cards” -Ashutosh Komali

Hey, I'm Ebenezer Appiah, I go by he/him/his pronouns and I competed for Alief Elsik School School from 2019-2023 where I had a couple of standout achievements World Schools wise.

TL;DR: I vote on the best remaining offensive material at the level at which it is proven. Typically this just means choosing the clash/material you are winning and using existing and (sufficient) warranting to access an impact that you can realistically weigh out your opponent with. If you prove your argument at the specific level at which you want it to operate ur chillin. I almost always auto-70 a speech that lacks terminal argument development so doing this will for sure raise speaks even if you lose the round.

Things that make my job hard:

• Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
• Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents
• Not proving your arguments (I don't buy things in a vacuum - reasons must be explicit and proven to a point where they meet some burden(s) of proof)

In framing debates, I expect warranted reasons for why I should prefer one interpretation over another. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening. For the sake of a clean round and the least intervening decision possible, I highly recommend you do this

In debates where things are not explicitly proven, I'll assume the most relevant arguments for both sides are true and make the comparison of what argument wins (pre-requisite, scale of impact, duration of impact, etc.)

Things that make my job easy:

• Identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those areas.
• Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of rebuttal e.g. the role of the argument, why I should prefer a specific type of argument as opposed to another)
• Weigh the mechs/warrants behind the argument - tell me why your reasons matter more/ are more likely to occur in contrast to your opposition, especially in debates where there are shared impacts which tends to happen a lot
• Weigh impacts if they are differentiated. Note that weighing at the impact level must concede the warrant level (so the argument does happen) and instead engage in the end result of the argument. Rarely do I see impact weighing or even link/warrant level weighing, instead I tend to see rebuttal on the warrant level (often not sufficient enough rebuttal) and neglect for the impact level.
• Be strategic. I'd likely caution against extending an unwarranted framing debate for example especially when there are far better ways to allocate time in terms of forwarding arguments, making good weighing, even-if statements, or just biting the bullet and engaging. More times than not if the framing is that left field, I'll buy the ref as soon as it is introduced in the round - doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning toward it. Don't overcompensate! Good judge instruction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side.
• General rule of thumb: always fill in gaps for why and how something happens. I must know why a claim is true, why it is exclusive to your side, and quantifiably why that thing is good or bad or morally why that thing is good or bad.

A combination of the aforementioned stuff is the best way to get a decision you agree with. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that we all never like but is necessary if the work isn't done in round

I'm not at all authoritarian when it comes to style. As a competitor who spoke a bit quicker than what was typically the norm in WSD, I understand how an overbearing focus on style can have an unattended effect of discrediting good debating. If I can flow it and you signpost you'll do fine. arg quality > rhetoric. ideally, the best speeches have all 3 but my pivot is more towards content and strategy.

Principled arguments are fun to see but they need to be both extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll have a spot on my flow of a principle that may have been well established but was poorly leveraged against other arguments. Another thing principle wise ~ if the principle full stops at proving moral benefit of the motion without prescribing the moral necessity of the motion, I’m probably not gonna buy it because that’s just a util principle in disguise. The principle needs to set a framework for morally evaluation and then explain why violating that framework produces moral injury.

All and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun!

If you have questions you can reach me at ebenezer.g.appiah@gmail.com or eappiah@regis.edu

First of all, I’m still a senior in highschool, so obviously if you’re seeing this then you’re probably either a novice, I forgot to update my paradigm, or this is an EIF tournament. That being said, obviously I have different requests for each event.

for LD: please don’t spread, I consider it abusive especially on the traditional circuit (if you are EIF this doesn’t apply). I prefer philosophy heavy arguments rather than card vs card debate. This isn’t policy so please don’t make it one person policy debate all due respect. Please don’t give me off time roadmaps unless it is specific, I would rather just flow what I hear than being prepared to do something that is inevitably going to be changed because let’s be real this is novice LD and it’s hard out here guys. Please don’t call me judge repetitively, I understand a “judge my opponent…” but don’t constantly ask if I’m ready by asking judge just say “is everyone ready”, I’m picky and it’s okay if you do this it’s all just preference, obviously that won’t skew my judgement. If you provide your opponent a copy of your case because you do plan to spread then I also will need a copy.

for pf: pretty much the same as ld but I’m a bit more lenient with the ruling about cards and stuff obviously. Please don’t yell over eachother, it’s rude and immature, you can cut each other off if you deem it necessary but no need to yell.

policy: honestly the likelihood of my judging policy is low until I graduate but if I do judge you for policy I would just ask that you please be respectful of both me and your opponents time and don’t run a joke argument because you got dared to by your team member who’s older than you.

Generally just be respectful of my time and you opponents time and feelings good luck!!!!

hi i’m emilio clear springs 25’

add 2 chain pls emiliogarza525@gmail.com

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

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

Quick Prefs

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

Larp - 1

TFW - 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL;DR

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

An interlude on strategy: It is my job to adapt to you more than it is for you to adapt to me. Feel free to go for whatever strategy will allow you to win the round. I would much rather you choose a strategy that you can execute well than a strategy that caters to my preferences.

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

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

How I evaluate:

-I look to who's winning the weighing debate

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

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

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

-if team y is winning case the round is over

-if team y is also losing case I presume neg

Speeches:

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

Cross:

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

Rebuttal:

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

Summary + Final Focus:

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

Weighing:

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

Theory:

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

Kritiks:

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

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

Saratoga '25 | PF | leonardo.jia@gmail.com

Background: I am currently a junior at Saratoga doing PF (my partner is Ashish Goswami). My accomplishments include: quarterfinals at NCFL Grand Nationals, semifinals at Berkeley, and semifinals at TOC.

PF:

To win my ballot:

1. If you are winning the weighing, you must win whatever offense is weighed. This offense must be extended in both summary and final focus and frontlined adequately (this means no terminal defense).

2. If you are not winning the weighing, you must win offense (extended in both summary and final focus and frontlined extremely well-this means not a speck of conceded defense, whether or not its terminal) along with terminal defense on your opponents' case.

3. If nobody is clearly winning the weighing, I am forced to intervene and decide who has more offense. In the unlikely scenario that neither teams have better offense, I presume based off of a coin toss or whatever presumption warrants are read.

Non-substance: I consider myself to be a substance debater, but I am fine with non-substance. Run at your own discretion.

Speed: I am fine with anything <=250 wpm. Anything faster is your own risk. I don't flow off docs, they are only for evidence sharing.

Timing: Time yourself. I give a 5 second grace period after a speech's time is up. Anything after is off the flow.

Behavior: DBAA policy.

Everything non-PF: Treat me as a guy who flows. Don't do anything fancy.

**borrowed paradigm from Skylar Wang with many changes**

Hi! I'm Emilian. I am a 2nd year high school PF debater. As a judge, I am on the more tech/flow side. Please put emilian@optimaltec.com on the email chain (if there is one), and don't hesitate to reach out.

Speak at a normal speed, I can take moderate spreading but not too fast please. Your speaker points and the entire round are on the line since if I can't hear what you're saying I can't flow or understand the clash meaning all your arguments go out the window.

Extend your arguments through the round. This may arguably be the most important thing written here. I will be flowing; I can tell.

WEIGH. ALL speeches after 2nd rebuttal must 100% have weighing or I'm defaulting to the other side.

Comparatives are very important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way. This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this and I don't want to do that and you don't want me to do that either.

Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted.

Make sure everything is well warranted and developed THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ROUND. If your arguments are blippy or have no explanation whatsoever I will discount them entirely.

Ev ethics.

1. Read names of authors and dates when you bring up evidence for the first time. Always. I won't accept the evidence otherwise.
2. Send evidence or I discount it immediately; you should have all your evidence ready.
3. If I see blatantly misconstrued evidence I don't care if it's interventionist but I'm discounting it and docking speaks.
4. Don't hesitate to call for evidence!
5. When you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link. Borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate."

I'm down to hear literally any arguments, prog is fine (ks, theory, etc is fine; no tricks. no guarantees it will be a great decision since I'm not a theory or K debater and haven't debated against them much but I am pretty good on the conceptual understanding of these arguments so don't be *too* afraid).

Back half specifics:

Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a small claim made in summary and blown up in final focus

Collapse please.

Speaks:

avg is 28

Will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behavior

Feel free to ask any questions before and after round! Best reachable by email.

I competed in PF at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas on the national circuit for four years. I also dabbled a bit in LD and CX.

Please add davidlutx@gmail.com to the chain. Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. Let me know if I should save my flow. If anything in this paradigm is confusing, don’t be afraid to ask for clarification. Post-round me if my decision is unclear. I will try to be the best judge I can.

This paradigm is inordinately long; a brief skim should help you find the most relevant sections to determine your adaptation strategy.

TL;DR/General: I am fine with any strategy, but the best arguments are both technically strategic and compatible with the average intuition. The “truth” of an argument informs its technical weight. Patently untrue or overly esoteric arguments require more extensive investment in evidence, reasoning, and time. Speed is fine but slow down when reading tags; be clear no matter what. I will not flow off a doc. Conceded arguments are true, but only the parts that are conceded. I will not vote on an argument I do not understand. Every speech after constructive must answer those before them. Read cut cards, avoid paraphrasing, and send evidence before speaking. I appreciate adjudicating debaters who are innovative in both strategy formation and execution.

Case construction is an underappreciated skill. The best constructive should have concretely delineated internal link scenarios, high-quality evidence, and flexible strategic pivots. Extensions are a yes/no question but can be crucial in establishing ethos, clarity, and warrant comparison. Frontlines should be comparative. Two-word frontlines are generally insufficient, and new frontlines beyond first summary are illegitimate. I evaluate substantive arguments probabilistically: it would behoove debaters to utilize the language of risk assessment, where all parts of the argument are collectively weighed, not just an impact in a vacuum. Weighing that is not comparative is meaningless. The only speech where I will reject new weighing is the second final focus. 'Try or die' framing can be remarkably convincing if executed properly.

As a debater, I did a considerable amount of research on a wide variety of topics and believe that a substantial portion of the activity extends beyond the actual hour-long rounds we have. Accordingly, I probably care more about evidence than the average judge of my age group. Extending the warrants, rhetoric, and context introduced in evidence can be incredibly helpful. Indicts can be effective if done right. If its clashing interpretations are critical to my decision, I will scrutinize evidence after the round, but I won't indict evidence for you. I appreciate well-spun evidence, but unethically miscut or wholly power-tagged evidence is distinct from that. Well-formatted evidence will be rewarded with excellent speaker points. Most analytics are incredibly shallow, but clever analytics can be persuasive.

I am more receptive to ‘zero risk’ than the average policy judge but less receptive than the average PF judge. 'Conceded' defense that is 'terminal' is only relevant if it was explained and presented as such. However, the burden of proof always comes before the burden of rejoinder. Warrant and evidence comparison is crucial in breaking clash. This also means that I appreciate debaters who prioritize quality over quantity and emphasize key issues by fleshing them out. If I have to, I will default my presumption in favor of the side that defends the less appreciable departure from the status quo. This is usually the negative in debates about the normative truth of the resolution, the side that violates the interpretation in theory debates, the affirmative in topical critical debates, etc.

Everything below is a non-exhaustive explanation of my views on specific arguments:

I am very good for internal link/impact turns. These should be coupled with long pieces of clearly delineated defense and extensive weighing in the back half. I am not nearly as dogmatic as many other judges who arbitrarily presuppose a didactic framework for which case turns are legitimate. Especially in an activity where ‘technical’ debaters are unable to coherently explain why nuclear proliferation prompts immediate escalation, why economic growth assuages warmongering sentiment, or why global emissions circumvent adaptation, these arguments are excellent ways to force scrutiny onto the most uncomfortable corners of the constructive. I do not have any particular, similarly arbitrary ‘thresholds’ for how rigorously you must respond to these arguments. As with any other substantive strategy, evidence comparison, risk calculus, and judge instruction will win the round. Generally, if there is a well-established evidentiary base grounded in scientific and historical research behind your offense, then I am more than amenable.

I am also great for extinction vs structural violence framework debates. In general, arguments that are unapologetically 'big-stick' or 'soft-left' are strategic. Defending anything between those two is probably an uphill battle. Debaters who identify and answer the fundamental questions central to the framework debate are more likely to win than those who attempt to nebulously garner offense under both frameworks. In a similar vein, framing justifications that devolve into "structural violence causes extinction" or the converse creates messy, unresolvable debates that inevitably invite intervention. As a side note, I think teams should be more willing to actively exclude offense through a 'form-based' rather than a 'content-based' approach. I default epistemic confidence over epistemic modesty.

I am fine with debates surrounding interpretations, norms, and abuse but find many of them to be exceptionally mind-numbing, unwarranted, or both. I strongly prefer debates concerning in-round abuse that occurred as opposed to hand-wavy proclamations of 'establishing better norms'. You do not need to extend dropped paradigm issues in the back half, but I would prefer a succinct reference to each part of the shell. Frivolous theory justifies frivolous speaker points. Harder presses on reasonability and ‘drop the argument’ can be compelling. Substance crowd-out is a nontrivial impact. An RVI refers to winning off of defense, not offense, and I am incredibly receptive to voting on 'offensive counter-interpretations'; be willing to defend the violation.

I am at least vaguely familiar with most critical literature bases that are commonly read in PF. This includes critiques surrounding Capitalism, Biopolitics (Foucault, Agamben), Security, International Relations (Feminist IR, Race IR), Settler Colonialism (Tuck & Yang), Disability Studies (Mollow, St. Pierre), Orientalism, Psychoanalysis, Afro-Pessimism (Wilderson), Fiat, and Death. I enjoy reading critical literature in my free time and actively think about these arguments the most, but I am far dumber than you might think.

You are not restricted to these, but I will not vote on an argument I cannot coherently explain in my decision. Regardless, you should attempt to present these arguments in an accessible, digestible manner. This means fewer buzzwords, more moderate speeds, and minimal doc/backfile-botting. Corybantic bouts of incomprehensible philosophizing are difficult to flow, and strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating.

The best critiques criticize the underlying commitments and assumptions of the opposing side and utilize said criticism to either moot opposing offense, compare impacts, or forward alternative advocacy. Critiques that tunnel vision on a single line or some unwritten, circuitous insinuation of the affirmative lack both persuasive appeal and offense. In a similar vein, PF needs more "should the affirmative get to weigh the case?" debates. Sweeping, categorical theorizations of international relations, identity, ontology, language, etc. require a tremendous level of warranting that is difficult in a format where the final speeches are two minutes long, so (as with all arguments) critical debaters that simplify the round’s central controversy into a few lines of synthesis are significantly more likely to win.

I am indifferent to the many contrived controversies concerning alternatives in PF. The moral panic surrounding rejection alternatives has never made sense to me, especially since much of the literature surrounding said alternatives deploys the precise rhetoric of epistemic rejection. However, such advocacies should be coupled with a concrete framework-esque push that explicitly addresses the big-stick nature of many affirmatives. Absent a clear indication otherwise, alternatives are unconditional. PF is the wrong place for floating PIKs, but I am sympathetic to other forms of 'K tricks' such as 'value to life' and 'extinction inevitable' if explicitly implicated when presented. Whether or not a critique should include an alternative should largely depend on the literature being cited and the nature of the alternative's material actions (or lack thereof), with the latter informing its theoretical proximity to ‘counterplans.’

Finally, do not homogenize critiques. Not every critique functions as a ‘DA’, necessitates winning ‘out-of-round/ballot solvency’, criticizes ‘fiat’, or impacts ‘marginalized groups’. The distinction between ‘pre-fiat’ and ‘post-fiat’ is contrived and meaningless. This event has yet to develop any semblance of norms for critical arguments, so I will be impressed by debaters who truly engage with the central claims of the critique instead of relying on the many pedantic theoretical objections that proliferated when I debated. Read from cut cards and disclose when reading these arguments anyway. Impact turns, when morally applicable, are welcomed. I am waiting for debaters in this event to realize that strategic articulations of the ‘permutation double-bind’ and ‘links are non-unique’ are close to unbeatable.

Evenly debated, I am not the best judge for strategies that entirely deviate from the topic, promote a wholesale rejection of debate, and/or primarily garner offense from the inclusion of a 'performance'. I do not have any personal distaste for such arguments, nor am I particularly less capable of adjudicating them, but I find many of the procedural and analytical objections against these difficult to overcome. Similar thoughts apply to advocacy that is predicated on abstractions of 'discourse' or unfalsifiable appeals to 'empathy'. I am relatively agnostic on questions relating to the best ways for debaters to respond. I have no major preference for fairness, clash, and skills-based impacts and am agnostic on questions relating to the relative persuasiveness of counter-interpretations, impact turns, impact comparison, etc. Well-researched method debates are highly encouraged, but I still do not understand why affirmatives do not double down on the permutation (and why negatives so carelessly disregard it). Finally, strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating (copied from above). Many PF judges abandon the line-by-line and offense-defense paradigm in these debates; I am not one of them.

I am incredibly uncomfortable voting on arguments that concern out-of-round interpersonal conflicts that could be better resolved elsewhere. Ad hominem is a fallacy.

You're better off saving your 'tricks'—single sentences that operate independently of the topic, exist in a logical vacuum, and largely depend on concession to become viable—for the other Seven Lakes judges that are probably in the pool (see the last paragraph). The same can be said for ‘independent voting issues’ that are neither independent nor voting issues.

Speaker points are a reflection of case construction, strategy, clarity, evidence quality, efficiency, timeliness, and argument selection. You should be kind to your partner, opponents, and judge. Treat the activity and those who partake in it with respect and decency. Be a good person.

For any questions left unanswered by this paradigm: I learned how to debate with and from Vishal Surya, Arnav Mehta, Jason Zhao, Daniel Guo, Bryce Piotrowski, Bryce Sheffield, Tuyen Le, and Nine Abad. I share many of their opinions.

Hi! My name is Somya Mehrotra and I participated in public forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress debate during my time in High School. I competed in the Houston circuit, and made it to TFA State as well as NSDA nationals in 2022. When judging, I prefer that you send me your main speeches and add me to any evidence chains at: somya.mehrotra2005@gmail.com

General Rules:

No matter what form of debate, here are some general rules of respect I expect all participants to follow:

1) No using racially offensive words, slurs, hate language towards any community. Any use of these will result in an automatic L25 and a win for the opposing team. Debate is supposed to be a professional conversation, not a space for hate.

2) A trigger warning must be given for topics concerning SA, abuse, etc. If the opposing team is not okay with these topics, you are expected to have a backup argument that you can use in its place.

3) No yelling, interrupting, cursing, or name calling during cross. I will dock speaker points for inappropriate behavior or language.

All in all, be polite and respectful.

Lincoln Douglas Preferences:

I prefer for little to no spreading. If you are planning on any amount of spreading, I expect you to discuss that with your opponent, and send me the speech doc you are using. I do not particularly like super technical debate with shells, etc. I am a flow judge, but I prefer constructives with values that are followed by actual arguments. If your opponent drops something and you point it out, I will stop flowing responses to that point, but you have to bring it up. Cross will be evaluated for speaks, not particularly for content (not flowed).

Public Forum:

I did PF for a while so I'm fairly familiar with it. I prefer traditional PF debates, with cases that are fairly evidence based. I'm not a fan of evidence dumping - you have to explain how the evidence is relevant, use logic, etc. Make sure to extend all evidence throughout the round. Once dropped in rebuttal, I will not accept responses on an argument. Cross will be evaluated for speaks, not particularly for content (not flowed). Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other. Keep speeches organized for better speaks, and make sure to specify what responses are for what arguments/contentions. Weighing is super important, and I expect to see it done well.

Congress:

Participation is very important in Congress, the more you speak, the more familiar I will become with you and the more likely I am to give better speaks. Don't dump evidence. Speak at a moderate pace - there should be no spreading. Quality of arguments is important. PO's don't automatically advance - I need to see good organization. Try and bring up unique arguments -- if something has already been said I prefer not to hear it again.

Overall:

I am pretty flow. Feel free to ask more questions in round. For online tournaments, cameras should be on for all parties. Inform me ahead of time if you are having network issues, etc.

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

Hi Debaters!

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

If you're in Novice/JV

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

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

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

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

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

• final focus: summary but 2 minutes

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

please ask me any questions you have about debate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

- postround me, it makes me a better judge.

Extra points

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

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

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

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

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

speaker points

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

- making opponent laugh = 30

- disrespectful behavior = 25.

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

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

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

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

Hi congressmen and congresswoman(debaters),

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

Some notes on how to score well for round integration:

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

Some notes on content:

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

Some notes on delivery:

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

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

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

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

TL; DR in bold

Alr, time for the juicy stuff:

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

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

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

*****SUBSTANCE*****

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

• Carded weighing is GASSSS.

• I like framework debates. Feel free to read new frameworks in every speech minus summaries and final foci. If it's conceded, then u don't have to ext everything. I.e. if someone concedes a 30-45 second structural violence framework, only spend like 10-15 seconds on it in final focus.

EVIDENCE:

This one's important.

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

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

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

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

PROGRESSIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD Paradigm

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

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

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

SPEAKS:

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

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

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

IMPORTANT STUFF:

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

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

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

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

Pet Peeves

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

TO CONCLUDE

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

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

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

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

Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

send link chains to markop@princeton.edu if you intend to spread

About me:

In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress. I now am a senior at Princeton University studying public policy and behavioral science.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh under a cost-benefit analysis. I personally do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is actually useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic when direct evidence is not available, but I will always weigh empirical and direct evidence over logical conclusions. A study demonstrating what is actually occurring in the world (be that study descriptive or a lab experiment) is always more accurate than what one simply thinks would happen with a certain policy or governmental action.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in the constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate purpose; if you drop your framework, you drop your entire argument.

As usual, logical conclusions are permissible but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I absolutely love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond to the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting for your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution.

also also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

ive debated pf for 3 years with over 10+ nationals tournaments. speed is fine w me js tell me if you are going fast and send a speech doc. I vote off of weighing, but not regular weighing, comparative weighing. Explain to me why I should prioritize your weighing over your opponents.

I have been screwed in my rounds countless of time I will make sure the round is as fair as possible.

Gl and have fun

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

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

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

Novices/Middle Schoolers:

Ignore the entirety of this paradigm. I admire each and every one of you for trying this activity so early. The only rule that I prefer for you to follow is: Pick an argument, defend it well, and make sure that you are explaining why it is the most important argument in the round.

LARP - 1

Theory - 2

Non-Topical Ks - 3

Topical Ks - 3

Tricks - 4

General Info:

Fundamentally, debate is a game. Play to win. Tech > Truth; "Tabula Rasa".This means I vote on the argument with the least contested link into the largest impact.

- Email chains are of utmost importance.Label them properly. For example, "UK Digital Speech & Debate Series 1: Ravenwood SM vs. North Broward Prep AS Semifinals". It makes sure that I can keep myself organized. Make sure that you are sending cards and docs beforehand if possible.

- Speed is fine. If you go over 225 wpm, please send a speech doc.Debate is a communication activity, so make sure you are clear and coherent.If you are going fast, you must include elaborate tags on your docs; "Thus" does not suffice.

- Signpost. It's how I'm going to be able to keep up. If you don't, I'll be sad.

- TKOs are stupid and not educational. In my opinion, teams need to see what they can do better over the course of a round.

- Pleasemake evidence exchange quick. I judge via the TOC guidelines: Team X has unlimited prep time until team Y sends the evidence that was asked for.

- Postround- ask questions.When I was first getting started, I was able to improve significantly by postrounding judges after rounds.

Round Evaluation (Stolen from Ananth Menon):

1. I look to who's winning the weighing.

2. If team X is winning the weighing, I look at their case.

3. If team X wins their case, the round is over.

4. If they are losing the weighing, I look to team Y.

5. If team Y is winning their case, the round is over.

6. If team Y is losing their case, I presume.

Case:

- Feel free to read any type of argument as long as it's not ____ist.

-The more innovative your case is, the higher your speaks.

- Will give 30s to any teams that read all impact turns in constructive.

Rebuttal:

- Overviews, disadvantages, advantages are all fine in either rebuttal.

- Collapsing in rebuttal is an underutilized strategic strategy, in my opinion. I would definitely suggest doing this if needed.

- Defense is not sticky. You must respond to all offensive and defensive responses to the argument that you want to go for in the back half.

- Any rebuttal that is only analytics and analysis or impact turns will be auto-30s.

- Any second rebuttal that frontlines the entire case well will also be auto-30s.

Summary:

- Extensions are important. Make sure to extend the entirety of your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. That being said, this definitely should not be more than 20-30 seconds. I've heard your argument once - I just need it reiterated.

- Ido notconsider extensions with card names as real extensions. "Extend Kumar 24" doesn't mean anything. If you are not extending your arguments properly, I'm not going to vote for you even if you are winning your argument. Make sure that you are calling improper extensions out in case I miss them.

- Here's an example of a proper extension: HSR is expensive with a singular line costing 105 billion dollars. This causes the government to derive funding from other non-transportation demands on federal funds as federal loan programs can support only a fraction of HSR project costs. This is because foreign aid is seen through the optic of a tradeoff with resources available for addressing domestic problems, and 60% of Americans want cuts. This would be devastating as it would kill 3 billion people through starvation.

Final Focus:

- Follow the same guidelines as summary. Do notbe new with an argument that wasn't in summary.

Weighing:

- Weighing is the most important part of the round. Make sure you are doing it consistently throughout. Make sure you are responding to your opponent's weighing as well. Otherwise, I would likely intervene.

- I evaluate every type of weighing (Prerequisites, Short-Circuit Magnitude, Scope, etc.)

- Pet Peeve:Probability weighing is not real weighing. It's a function of winning your link.

Frameworks:

- I've evaluated and ran common frameworks (Extinction, Structural Violence, Women). Essentially, I view them as weighing, meaning that they can be introduced in any speech before Final Focus.

Progressive Argumentation:

I'll preface this section of my paradigm by saying: I'm not super experienced in progressive debate. In fact, I'm 2-7 in progressive debate. With that being said, please do not read progressive argumentation in front of me.I'm slowly learning how this works, and I hope to be evaluating "11-offs" soon.

Trigger Warnings:

I think that trigger warnings are an important precaution. It's important that we're discussing these issues, but we should be able to do it in a comfortable environment.

IVIs:

- These are stupid. I've seen these arguments being read at an increasing rate in PF, and I despise it. Any violation should just be brought up as a shell rather than through IVIs.

Presumption:

- If there is no offense left in the round, I will presume for the first-speaking team because I think first summary is the hardest speech in PF.However, feel free to make presumption warrants, and I will evaluate them.

Cross:

- I don't listen to cross. I'm probably on my phone doing something else. With that being said, concessions from cross still matter. Just make sure to bring them up in following speeches.

-Also, don't grandstand. It's really annoying.

Speaker Points:

- I'll give 30s for all the indicated situations above. Additional situations where you can get 30s are turning in chair while reading a turn, referencing the NFL (Seahawks), and referencing cricket & IPL (India & RCB/CSK).

If anything in this paradigm is still confusing, read the paradigms of Vedant Misra, Arnav Mehta, William Hong, and Ryan Jiang. All four of them have been influential to how I view PF.

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

I'm a high school PF debater

You can read whatever you want.

Required in each of your speeches(any one of the below):

1. Jojos reference

2. Cobra Kai reference

3. 30 speaks theory

4. nuke war impact

5. dedev ( u have to win some extent of it and i'll evaluate )

6. spreading in the final focus

7. sing the Indian national anthem at the end of each of your speeches

8. PLEASE say Game over judge at least 35 times in each speech

9. Read thankyous to whoever you want to thank for being in the tournament (3 thankyous required)

if both teams don't do this, I evaluate a round normally. I'm a flow judge but don't go too fast. pls do weighing. I like framing and theory debate. Overall, just win ur links, impacts, and weigh.

Tech > truth

non-interventionist

No harassment or bigotry of any kind, auto-drop.

Email: vivek95148@outlook.com

^ Add to all email chains, I want to see disclosure

UK Update: Voting on presumption is very demure, very mindful.

---

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com

---

Recent Affiliations:

Coaching: Ivy Bridge Academy (PF), Thomas Kelly College Prep (Policy)

Debating: Western Kentucky University (2024-present), Georgia State University (2021-2024), Sequoyah High School (2017-2021)

---

AI Rule: don't.

---

Quick Prefs:

As a flex judge if you want a K or policy hack, probs put me lower, i just like good debates. I am 50/50 for framework, flow on paper and don't look at the doc, I am more down for theory than most. Just like... make good arguments. Use what you are good at, don't use what you are not.

---

I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear, my laptop will likely be closed till the rebuttals, I will yell "clear" or "loud" as much as needed but I would rather not have to and I will just stop if I get tired of saying it - speed will always be fine - clarity though is just as important

I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

Tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle

I have debated and judged debates for about 5 years now. I have experience in more than 6 debate formats.

I encourage debaters to be keen throughout the round, be precise and mechanise their arguments in addition to weighing in of clashes in a round. But most importantly, I encourage debaters to learn from each and every debate regardless of whether they win or lose.

Rebuttals should be as concrete as your constructions because they carry as much importance.

I am okay with spreading.

I will default to they/them pronouns for everyone, so if you would like me to use something different let me know before the round.

Be kind, have fun!

tech > truth - i will try my best not to intervene

As a judge, my goal is to provide constructive and fair feedback that will help debaters improve their skills. I believe that all debaters should be treated with respect and should feel free to express their opinions without fear of judgment. I also believe that debate should be fun and enjoyable for all participants. With this in mind, here are some things you can expect from me as a judge:

• I will listen carefully to your arguments and give them the consideration they deserve
• I will evaluate the arguments based on their merits, not based on my personal beliefs or opinions
• I will give clear and concise feedback that will help you to learn and grow
• However, I am not a fan to fast speaking. While I understand that you may feel pressured to speak fast, I ask that you slow down and speak clearly so I can better understand you and for the sake of your arguments
• And lastly I want you to know that I am here to support you and help you improve.

Thank you for trusting me to be your judge.