[BowieHS'23] PF, DX, & WSD; [GWU'27]

[Email] cristian.abarca@gwu.edu

Public Forum Debate:

TLDR: Flow judge, good with speed, tech over truth, I want to be on the email chain, not interventional, don't be abusive.

Similar Outlooks: My view on debate is very similar to those of my former teammates Grant Barden and Fionella Caputo. I discuss many of the same perspectives, outlooks, and issues here as they do in their paradigms.

A Couple of Specifics:

Cases. I'm open to pretty much anything here. I might give +1 speaks if you run something creative, or otherwise not stock. After all, debate loses its productivity if competitors have the exact same round again and again. If you're spreading you MUST send a document BEFORE the speech.

Impact Warranting & Terminalization. I would think this is obvious....ALL IMPACTS MUST BE WARRANTED & TERMINALIZED. Too many debaters are failing to do this, particularly with extremely common impacts. (I.e., "Nuke War → Extinction" needs a warrant and terminalized impact [e.g., death], it is not presumed.) Examine opponents' arguments for lack of warranting and terminalization, there's a high chance it's there.

Summary & Final Focus. What's in the final needs to be in the summary, the first gets a little latitude. If you make abusive new arguments or false claims (like your opponents dropping something they didn't) I dock speaks. Also, collapse and weigh.

Framework. Defaults to cost-benefit, but anything's fine. Frameworks must be warranted. Be careful with stuff anyone can tie into, like structural violence, that your opponents will probably just concede, and you've wasted time. I love hyper-specific frameworks built for a particular case. If you want to contest a framework, please do so as soon as possible. (Not mandatory, but it makes the round easier to understand, and thus more likely I'll understand why I need to vote for you.)

Extensions. These must be present but don't need to be especially in-depth. Make sure to include uniqueness, links, and impacts. If you are going for a turn: YOU MUST EXTEND YOUR OPPONENTS' LINK CHAIN. If you don't, I can't vote on the turn. If your opponents don't extend, make sure to bring it up in a speech, it makes it much easier to evaluate as part of the round (DO NOT FALSELY CLAIM THIS).

Frontlining. The second rebuttal must frontline. Defense isn't sticky.

Calling for Evidence. Despite my desire to be included on an email chain, I will only review evidence for abuses if specifically asked to by a particular team. Only read the evidence you have on hand, it shouldn't take forever and a day to retrieve, if it does, I dock speaks quickly. A hyperlink you found on Duck Duck Go mid-round isn't evidence. If you want to find something mid-round to read, you must also properly full-format cut it mid-round too. Also, one of those fancy hyperlinks that highlights the text when you click on it does not count.

Notes on Speech Docs. Two things here: (1) Only include what you will/plan/hope to read on your doc. Don't include evidence or rhetoric you are certain won't be read on the doc. Strategies like "what's red we don't read" just serve to confuse everyone. If you don't understand what I mean here, don't worry about this. (2) Docs should only be sent through irreversible means, they shouldn't be able to be un-sent after a round. The classic example of this is with Google Docs. Not once have I been on a shared Google Doc that wasn't immediately un-shared after the round or had the download or copy features disabled. There are also evidence ethics concerns as teams can insert new evidence into the doc after a speech and falsely claim that it was read as it was "in the speech doc."

Cross. I'm listening to cross, but I'm not flowing it. If a key point is made here, it needs to be brought up in a speech to make it into my flow. I do evaluate cross for speaker points. If you are excessively rude or stage a soliloquy that rivals those of Shakespeare to crowd out your opponents, I dock speaks fast.

Grand. I'm fine skipping grand cross, but doing so means the round goes straight to finals. Skipping grand is not an excuse to award yourselves more prep time to remedy poor choices in prep time allocations earlier in the round.

Paraphrasing. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. While I won't directly dock you anything if you do, let's say if someone paraphrases I would be more than content to hear a theory shell calling it out.

Trigger Warnings. If you are wondering whether an argument needs a trigger warning, it probably does. These should also be anonymous, I'd suggest an anonymous Google form. If you read a harmful argument without a trigger warning, I will be very perceptive to a theory shell on the matter. (For clarification, "wipeout" and "spark" arguments need trigger warnings, you are telling everyone in the round that they should die.)

Weighing. Please do this. There are two types of legitimate weighing: timeframe and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a derivative of these two (i.e. scope, extinction, try-or-die, pre-req) or is illegitimate. Most notably, please steer clear of using "probability" or "strength-of-link" weighing as both are low-key abusive and amount to either: (1) new un-warranted defense claims; or (2) the statement "don't vote for my opponent, I don't know why they're wrong, but they probably are." Less common, but even more ludicrous is "cherry-picked" evidence analysis. DON'T do this. ALL EVIDENCE IN DEBATE IS CHERRY-PICKED at the point a debate case is an agglomeration of evidence that forms a specific narrative. While weighing is important, don't spend too much time here. It doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning the link to it.

A2: Weighing. Except in the occasional situation where it might be advantageous to concede to your opponents' weighing mechanism, you must rebut their weighing. It can be easy to overlook weighing in a busy round, yet it can prove to be fatal. Too many teams end up losing despite superior argumentation because they lost the weighing debate even though they won large portions of their offense.

Timing. It is not the judge's responsibility to time y'all. While I likely will do so for reference, y'all should time yourselves and hold each other accountable for staying on time. The only time it MIGHT be okay to go overtime is if your opponents have already done so.

Speed. I'm good with speed/spreading. When spreading, it is NOT okay to compromise on clarity. If you are not clear, I'll shout "CLEAR" two times before docking speaks. If you're pushing 300 wpm, you MUST send a doc BEFORE the speech. You must also slow down on analytics (presuming they're not on the doc), and you MUST signpost when going off the doc.

Signposting/OTRs. Please signpost and give an off-time roadmap. The only thing worse than not giving one is giving one and not following it.

Presumption. If there's no offense in the round, I'll vote for the status quo (which is usually, but not always, the negative). That is unless a team presents and wins an argument in-round that a presumption ballot must act differently. If you do this, warrants need to be in rebuttal or (first) summary, there can't be a new-in-final presumption argument because you've just now realized you don't have offense.

Post-Rounding. It's fine, ask as many questions as needed for you to properly understand my decision. Feel free to email too.

Theory. Keep theory to check back for abuse. That being said, you are the ultimate arbiter of what you consider abuse. If you're alleging abuse, you need to read the shell immediately after that abuse. Friv theory might have a place in PF, but it is certainly not to steam-roll some novices who don't understand it for a cheap win. It's clear when this is a team's goal. If reading theory, shells don't need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final. I don't expect a word-for-word extension, but its spirit or intention shouldn't fluctuate.

Disclosure Theory Specifically. I'm on the fence on whether disclosure is beneficial, I don't lean to either side, so I'm open to seeing it run. That being said, please keep the following in mind. First, see the note about the new TFA rules below, if applicable. Second, I stand vehemently against the all-too-common 'big-schools, small-schools' standard, particularly when it is run by a big school against a small school. Disclosure might be good. A big school spreading theory against a small school, telling them what's best for them while asking me to down them is ridiculous. Put simply, if you're a big school and run this standard against a small school, I'll down you. I'm more than happy to vote for disclosure, even potentially for big schools against small schools, just use other standards.

Ks. I'm willing to go here. I've used common Ks like Capitalism and Securitization. However, if you're doing something uncommon make sure you explain the literature as I am likely not familiar with it. (Like theory, don't use Ks for a cheap win, they should be part of a productive debate. Once again, if you use this to steam-roll novices......I WILL DOWN YOU.)

Tricks. I am open to these, but I have a very low bar as to what is a sufficient response against them. So, you're welcome to read "nothing's the cause of anything" but I'll consider your opponent calling your argument dumb a sufficient response.

Blippy. Don't be. This is usually a cheap excuse to not provide adequate warranting or terminalization. See above.

TKOs. (Technical Knock-Outs.) TKOs are stupid. Even if a team has eliminated all of their opponent's paths to the ballot early in the round, there is still ample time for that team to make technical errors in later speeches leading to their loss, or for the opponent to introduce independent offense or weighing (if sufficiently early in the round) to remedy the situation. I have seen both of these eventualities occur. As TKOs preclude necessary argumentation, if you go for a TKO, I WILL DOWN YOU.

IVIs. (Poor-Man's Theory.) IVIs are usually stupid, particularly evidence ethics IVIs. Shell format is nearly always superior as unstructured IVIs can be exceedingly vague, tricky to weigh, and hard to nail down in-round.

Ethical Ballots. If your opponents are being discriminatory, I'm more than happy to down your opponents off of it via one of two pathways: (1) A theory shell on the matter. (2) If it's blatantly present, beyond the argumentation a theory shell entails (i.e. racist, sexist, etc.), please bring it up in a speech. However, if it's never mentioned in the round I won't be able to vote off of it.

Economics. I'm pursuing a BS in Economics, and as such I understand economic realities. Please make sure that if you're running an econ argument, like interest rates, that you know what you're talking about and aren't stumbling around in the dark. I'm not adding this disclaimer out of being biased against poorly run econ argumentation, but rather if your econ argumentation makes no sense it's hard to look away from it unless it goes completely conceded.

On the Recent Amendment to the TFA Constitution Regarding Disclosure... as some of you may be aware, the TFA has recently adopted an amendment to the TFA Constitution that reads: "Tournament directors may stipulate that judges at their tournament may not base their decision on [the] disclosure of cases or the lack thereof." Given this, if you intend to run disclosure theory, please first ensure that the tournament, if operating under the TFA, hasn't stipulated that judges are unable to vote on it. If this is the case, regardless of whether you win disclosure on the flow, I will be unable to vote for you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I very rarely competed in LD debate, thus limiting my exposure to the format's standard practices. However, given my participation in rather progressive PF, I should be fine evaluating the majority if not all of LD argumentation. Relevant commentary above on debate in general applies, that being said I won't constrain progressive argumentation in LD the way that I do in PF (as detailed above). Please make sure everything is neatly on the doc, or otherwise clearly signposted in the speech as not being on the doc. Lastly, don't assume I know/am familiar with the literature, particularly on less common subjects. Please don't hesitate to ask any clarifying questions.

World Schools' Debate:

I don't think there is too much to be said here. When it comes to how I will decide on the round, I will decide before assigning points. While style is important, I won't vote purely for it. Line-by-line analysis is not necessary and can be replaced with "worlds-comparison." All new arguments need to be included in the 1 or the 2. As for POIs, the 1-3 should be taking at least 2 POIs, but I'd recommend three. On the one hand, please don't be spamming POIs, but also if you are speaking at least gesture if you plan to (or not) take a POI so someone isn't just left standing there. Lastly, don't be abusive, or try to crowd your opponents out of the debate, I will mark you down for it. If there's anything I didn't address here, please feel free to ask about it before the round starts.

Come to University of Houston for LD camp this summer! UH has a great staff, is reasonably priced, and has an excellent staff to student ratio. If you have questions feel free to email me.

Berkeley update not good for strategies that involve upwards of 7+ off case positions.

blakeandrews55@gmail.com email with questions or for email chain purposes.

Head Coach at McNeil.

Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Head Coach at McNeil High School

Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC for LD and UTNIF for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while and I judge a lot of debates each year. Some local, some nat circuit, some just practice rounds for my team.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah).

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

Westwood '22

Competed on both the local and national circuit; Didn't compete as much during my Jr and Sr yr due to COVID.

Yes, add me on the email chain: rohanbajpai024@gmail.com

If you have any questions about your round, feel free to hit me up on messenger or I can tell you after RFD (if I have time).

TL;DR

Tech>Truth (I like true args tho). Read Amogh Mahambre's bit on this if you want to understand the specifics of my philosophy on this. Basically sums up how I am w/Tech>Truth. Make my time judging you easy.

SEND OUT SPEECH DOCS IF YOU ARE READING EV (Constructive and rebuttal especially). I'm fine with no speech docs for summary or final focus – I don't expect to receive one. If you have a speech doc for those speeches, don't send them. I only want constructive and rebuttal speech docs.

If you're paraphrasing, there should be cut cards. Ev ethics is a huge problem, and I take it in high regard. If you bracket, I have a problem with that.

I evaluate theory, but not the best at it.

No k affs, ks, or non-t affs. I am not comfortable voting off of them, even if I know the args.

Fine with spreading, but send speech doc. It'll be tough for me to flow w/o a speech doc.

Defense isn't sticky (has to be extended no matter what)

I'm fine with whatever you read (obv not discriminatory, racist, or sexist), but I prefer well-warranted args over anything else.

High threshold for warrants and extensions

Link weighing>>>>impact weighing

Assume that I don't know anything about the topic – I'll only do some topic research if a) I actually like the topic or b) I kinda know what's going on

People whose paradigms I mostly agree with – Amogh Mahambre, Srikar Satish, and Akhil Bhale. To simply sum it up, I would like to consider myself to be less technical than them but technical enough to be considered a tech judge.

Call me Akhil. Westwood '22

Important

1) If you plan on going fast, start at like 70% speed and ramp up from there. Slow down on tags and pls pls pls number your responses.

2) Don't assume I'm caught up on the meta of topics, explain acronyms and do the necessary work.

3) I care about rounds starting on time. Please come to rounds already preflowed and ready to begin. Flight 2s should ideally already have email chains set up with the Aff/Neg ready to be sent out.

4) I want to be on the email chain- akhilbhale@gmail.com

Send a compiled doc of cut cards that you will be reading BEFORE your speech. This means you should create an email chain and send your docs as attachments in the email, preferably not in the body. Sending a link to a Google Doc is a no-go; download the Google Doc as a Word document and attach it to the email instead.

Miscellaneous

I'm somewhat stubborn with speaks and will probably average around 28.5-29 . Receiving anything above necessitates a combination of good strategy, reading from cut cards (whenever evidence is first introduced), and disclosing broken positions.

Considering this is an evidence-based activity, good evidence, and its surrounding ethics matter to me. Cut and read good evidence.

Flex prep and tag-team crossfires are fine. Skip grand cross if everyone agrees too. Please don't steal prep, I will notice. Your pens should be down and your fingers off your computer if you're not prepping.

Every claim needs to be warranted the first time it's introduced for you to go for it later. I keep a pretty clean flow and will notice if there are incomplete or missing warrants.

The second rebuttal should frontline everything on the argument they go for and start the collapse debate. I care about good frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. There's a fine line between lazy frontlining and efficient frontlining. Defense IS NOT sticky but my threshold for first summary defense extensions is a lot lower if the 2nd rebuttal goes for everything on case.

Weighing [ :( ]. In the wise words of Evan Burkeen- "I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me." If you're going for a "link-in", I need a reason why your "link-in" outweighs their impact standalone.

I have a decent threshold for extensions. This encompasses everything- any offense, defense, or argument you want to be evaluated must have a coherent extension of it. This doesn't mean that it has to be super long or sophisticated, just present.

Link turns need to have uniqueness attached to it. For example, if the aff says HSR makes Democrats win the midterms, to link turn this the neg has to win that HSR makes Democrats lose AND that Democrats are winning the midterms now.

Read impact turns, they're fun. I don't need an extension of the link scenario.

Kicking turns by conceding no-links requires an explanation of why the no-link kicks out of the turn. Absent an explanation, the team reading the turn can go for it in the next speech.

I'm fine with some levels of sarcasm/pettiness/trolling- it's funny but don't be mean to novices.

I vote neg absent offense.

Theory

Most open to hearing disclosure and paraphrase theory but curious to see what other violations you can extrapolate. Personally think disclosure (open source) is good and paraphrasing is bad but obviously won't hack for these arguments.

Not voting on TW/CW/Opt-out theory.

Uninterested in hearing arguments about new or novice debaters not having to disclose/cut cards, don't compete in Varsity if that's the case. I default to competing interpretations, exact text of the interp and (no?) RVIs. The no RVIs debate has always been confusing to me and it really depends on the CI being read. I.e if the interp is "must read from cut cards" and the CI is "must read paraphrased cards", the CI team should obviously get to win if they win their interp. For other CIs that are not competitive, probably default to no RVIs.

Shells must be read after the first instance of the violation. There are no limits on this- you can read paraphrase theory in 1st summary if 2nd rebuttal is the first instance of paraphrased cards.

I will be very happy if you read Topicality with a good definition card and can articulate a context-specific violation.

Not a stickler for theory extensions, just allocate the time elsewhere and do the necessary work on the standard/weighing,

Kritiks

Probably not the best for Kritiks but have decent exposure to them. Pretty familiar with generics like Cap and Security but will do my best to understand/judge other literature. Please clearly delineate links to the Aff and explain the alt/rotb/rotj.

I'd rather you not spread through your prewritten extensions and instead engage with the line by line.

K affs- I probably err neg on T/Fw but I think an Aff strategy of impact turns against impacts like fairness, and a durable CI makes voting Aff substantially easier.

This is still kinda incomplete and I'll add more things as I remember but if you have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out to me via email (it should be hyperlinked above).

advayabhattacharya@gmail.com

PF

Tech > truth for anything but exclusionary rhetoric

LARP (1)

for the section 203 topic: dk anything about it; go slower & explain

I look to who's winning the weighing debate. Nothing is sticky

Theory (2)

reading from cut cards is good, OSing cases good, RRs are good, positively worded interps are good.

default DTD, CIs, norm-setting, fairness > edu, no RVIs, spirit over text

Presumption: 1st speaking team

Tricks (3)

Read Tricks & sentiments - high speaks will be given even if I don’t get it

K (4)

Treat me like a lay

———————————————————————————

Speaks:

Auto 30s (if tournament allows) -

Thanking Mogo the cat, Sid Thandassery, Rehan Merchant, Magnus Carlsen, Arjun Chimata, and Brett Fortier before first speech

Auto 25s -

Exclusionary & rude stuff

Tech > Truth

Do not spread. If I can not understand you, you did not say it.

I like specific links to the topic and engaging with the affirmative.

I do not like K affs. You have to defend the topic.

You can read Kritiks but if it is a high phil or theory debate explain it well

DAs and Counterplans are great read them

Case debate is key do it

Only read theory if it is cheating don't read it just to read it

Experienced volunteer judge. No spreading, please. 

General Shi:
1) I am tab

2) Extend everything and frontline damning offense.

3) I evaluate and appreciate frameworks

4) I am 50 50 on sticky defense depending on the argument made

5) If your gonna go fast, send speech doc ( I don't care about the cut cards on there if u don't ready any).

6) I do TKO's.

7) If you are getting nuked in a round, and would like to end the round early, you can forfeit the round (prior to grand cross) and I'll give you the L but give you double 30's.

8) Tag Team CX is allowed, I think it's a good thing.

Weighing:
1) Make sure I get COMPARATIVE weighing and you do the work for me. I will not intervene
2) Warrant your weighing (aka. tell me why your high probability impact matters more than the opponents' scope weighing)

Speaks Boost Stuff:
1) Speak clearly, especially since we are online. I will add a speaker point if you have Brent Faiyaz or Drake playing in the background during the constructive
2) You can say whatever (aka. accidentally cussing). I won't really care unless its explicitly racist, ableist, homophobic, etc.
3) If the debate round is legit interesting -- auto 30s for both sides

Evidence

I'll never call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and nobody called it out. I think that's stupid and interventionist. I'll even evaluate evidence I literally know you wrote, if you're not called out on it. I don't care. I have a low threshold, however, for BS evidence if it's called out.

Theory Stuff

1) I think I am the wrong type of judge to read incredibly phil-rooted arguments or otherwise hyper-technical arguments that would be considered wildly outside of the realm of PF. This is not to say that you can't read theory, framing arguments or other technical arguments adapted to PF, but please be cognizant of this if you pick up my ballot, and explain your collapse better.
2) Make it interesting

Anderson 21' PF 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice lol

Tabula Rasa

Debate is a game

K's, T, disads, theory, and any progressive args are fair ways to play

I endorse good norms...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them

you're probably not winning a generalized theory bad IVI in front of me,

if you think you've encountered bad theory, read your own shell (or IVI) about friv theory or any specific shell you find abusive

default competing interps

speed is fine

feel free to post-round me until you understand my decision

will.erard@gmail.com

For readers:

I flow real good so follow the rules

No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read extinction framing or struc vi in final

Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped

If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore

You should frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary

I don't listen to cross so bring up concessions in speech

I give speaks based on in round strategy and technical prowess

FOR LD

tech pf judge

larp: very comfortable with larp, I won't mess it up I promise

theory: debated a lot of disclosure and paraphrasing in my day, I probably wont mess it up

T: T is cool i guess

Ks: mostly familiar with the structure but not with the lit, go easy on me, I might mess it up but I'll try my best

fine with spreading as long as I have the doc

ask specific questions if you have them!

Hi! I did speech and debate throughout high school from 2019-2023. I did TFA PF and Extemp, UIL LD and Extemp, and NSDA Extemp. Most of my accomplishments were in Extemp but I also understand the technicalities of PF and LD.

.

General: PLEASE be respectful to your opponents and your teammates. Outright hateful comments and bigotry towards others will not be tolerated in round and will affect my judgment.

Debate:

PF:

-I like to judge off my flow, so please go down each argument instead of jumping all over the place, and announce when you do jump somewhere.

-While I can keep up with speed moderately well I was not a Policy kid, so please do not spread to fast. In PF I would like to see a certain level of lay appeal.

-I will evaluate K's, framework, and other similar strategies. If it's something that your common parent judge has not heard of please ask me before you run it. I don't believe tricks sway a round too much, so I will likely not consider them. I will evaluate theory but I'd prefer not to, at the end of the day I always prefer you respond to the topic. If you are running this kind of stuff I would have a backup PF-centric case.

-ALWAYS extend and weigh until the final focus. Even if you believe you won an argument in summary I want to hear you give a brief reference to it in your final speech. Extending the argument will increase the chance I will evaluate it.

-Impacts are crucial to me in round.

-Don't steal prep it will be noticed.

-I'll let you know when the time is over. After around 5-10 seconds overtime I will likely ignore any arguments brought up in that period.

.

LD: Everything referenced above applies to LD as well. I will be a bit more loose since I know LD is a bit more technical though.

-Please stand up when you speak.

Speech (yay)

Extemp:

-I will tolerate small variations but please stay in line with the general extemp structure.

-If you go past 7:30 I will likely not give you the 1.

-I like to judge equally between style and content with a small preference towards style. If two people gave an equally good performance I will break the tie by choosing the person with the most responsive content.

-Please do not spin or play around the question, I'd like you to answer it directly and effectively.

-Please be an advocative speaker. The topics you discuss are impacting people at the end of the day.

LD:

I find value based arguments based on how things ought to be over policy to be most persuasive in LD debates, although policy as support can certainly be useful and demonstrative. Progressive argumentation is fine, and spreading is fine as long as it can still be understood. I expect the winning argument to be persuasive and effectively communicated, I should feel that I have been made to believe in what is being said and why you should win. If I need your case in writing to follow it, it won't be as persuasive and will be judged accordingly. I expect the debaters to set the terms, rules and ultimately the outcome of the debate based on what is said, not left unsaid. I won't connect the dots for your arguments, explain it me. I'm a huge fan of philosophical arguments setting up for clash. I'm familiar with a variety of K's and KvK's are great. I enjoy a debate that both an expert and a lay-judge can identify a winner. As far as speakers, I am looking for well paced delivery, sign posts, strong framing and weighing being presented effectively to tell me why you will win.

General prefs

1 Value Framework/Phil

2 Policy/ K's

3 Theory

4 Tricks

PF: I'd really prefer to see pf done the way it was intended. In other words pure policy and impact weighing without utilizing more progressive methods of debate. That being said, I'll judge it the way the debaters wind up debating the topics. So if you go tech rather than substance I'll still be able to judge properly. Generally I don't expect a value framework and the default is util calculus. Creative and unique arguments will be

Congress: I'm looking for congressional debaters to display appropriate round vision and understanding of the argumentation and how it is interacting on the chamber floor. A great constructive speech given in the middle of a session without clash won't be judged as well as if it were given earlier. I like to see good utilization of questions to impact the debate in chambers, as well as good clash during speeches with direct refutation of other congressional reps. Speeches at the end of a debate on a bill should be more crystallization speeches, and preferably give me weighing mechanisms for how to vote on each bill. Delivery matters, but proper understanding of the interaction of argumentation and directing that debate appropriately impacts my ballot the most heavily. Good funny AGD's are always appreciated as well as some LARP in congress is always nice to see. Proper framing of the issues is something lacking in most congress sessions and doing so will help you stand out on my ballot.

For Debate:

First and foremost I deduct points for Speed Reading/Fast Talk. If I can't understand a word you are saying, it doesn't matter what you're saying. Enunciate and show some emotion. You can't convince anyone of your position if you don't seem convinced of it yourself. Poise and confidence, or at least the appearance thereof win the round regardless of how big a pile of facts you happen to be reading. Show conviction without overt adversity when questioning your opponent... you aren't attacking them, you're attacking their position.

Competed for Westlake for 3 years.

Not familiar with progressive argumentation, you can run it if you want practice just don’t trust I can evaluate it without explanation.

Please just treat me as flay judge.

I am a retired coach. I have judged LOTS of rounds in all formats. I consider myself traditional in my approach to all events. I have provided my paradigm for speech and debate events here.

Public Speaking Events

All speeches should have well structured introductions, fully developed body, and satisfaction for your audience thru your conclusion. Sources are key to your speech, you should use a variety of appropriate sources. I expect that your speech will include the "why do I care" - What draws your audience to want to learn more from what you have to say. In extemp, I expect you to answer the specific question you were given. I evaluate all non-verbal communication in your presentation. I accept all perspectives on all topics; however, I expect that your are aware of your audience and avoid language or statements that may be offensive.

Interp Events

First and foremost, pieces should be appropriate for the venue. While I understand that some pieces may contain some sexual innuendo, I will reject innuendo that is not a part of the original script or that is added for the "shock value" rather than the development of the performance. Your introduction should be more than telling me the storyline that you are presenting. There is a reason you chose this piece, a topic you want to discuss. Share that in your intro. Give me believable characters that I can empathize with. Be sure there is an identifiable difference in your characters.

In all debate rounds

Don’t depend on email chains or flashing briefs to include an argument in the round. If it is not spoken during your speeches, it is not in the round. I prefer a more communicative speed of delivery, especially when using online competition. I can keep up but, I think the idea of trying to spread your opponent out of the round is not in the realm of what debate should be. I would rather hear a good clash on the arguments presented.

In PF

I believe PF should be a debate with class. Interactions between opponents should be cordial. Crossfire should be used to obtain information NOT to belittle your opponent. You can not ignore your opponent's arguments and expect to win. Evidence and common sense are key.

In LD

I feel that LD should be philosophy based. Even if the topic is policy-oriented, the selection of a policy is always based on values. Therefore, you should be prepared to debate your value and criterion to support your view on the topic. If you can't support your view, how can I accept your position?

A Kritik on the topic is not an acceptable position. You have been given a topic to debate and that is what I expect to hear. If all you offer is the Kritik, you have not upheld your burden and will lose the round. Running a Kritik on the topic in addition to case arguments is a huge contradiction in your case.

If you want me to view the round from your viewpoint, you must provide voters in your final speech.

In Congress

This is a congressional debate. I expect that you do more than read a prepared speech. There should be responses to previous speeches. You need to be active in the chamber. Questions are an essential part of the process. With that being said, don't ask questions that do not seek to expand information. That is a waste of the chamber's time and takes time away from those with solid questions. Provide sources to the house to substantiate your points.

In CX

I encourage traditional debate in terms of format. That means I do not like open cx. With that being said, I accept progressive style arguments. I will listen to your arguments, but I expect you to provide warrants and logical analysis. If you are the opponent, don’t assume I will reject an argument on face, you must respond if you want to win the argument.

I DO vote on STOCK ISSUES. So Affirmative teams should be prepared to meet those standards.

Negative teams, please don’t throw out a dozen arguments only to drop the ones that don’t stick. If you bring the argument into the round plan to carry it thru to the end.

Label your arguments before you start reading your briefs!

I believe it is essential that you weigh the impacts of your argument in the round.

basis ’22 | upenn ’26 | anshjaka@sas.upenn.edufor email chain

debated at basis for four years on both NatCir and TFA.

wont eval anything not on the flow, dont make late args.

feel free to read whatever you like. i typically wont disclose, but everything you need will be in the RFD.

dont overdo it on speed, dont be fast just to be fast make it clear and for coverage purposes.

extend everything you want as voters, weigh well.

no sticky defense, extend everything.

any sort of harmful, discriminatory, or inappropriate behavior in round will be auto loss with lowest speaks.

lmk if u have specific questions in round and i can try my best to answer.

good luck and have fun

TLDR:

Add me to the chain and send docs: aditya.kurra@stern.nyu.edu

You'd prob classify me as a flay judge.

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

Collapse well, extend clearly, weigh, win.

Please skip grand if u don't actually have questions

UPDATE YALE: Set up email chain before round and you should be ready to start immediately at the posted round time. I will deduct speaks by .3 for every minute you are late.

General:

I debated PF 4 years at Flower Mound

qualled for toc x2

LD/PF:

LARP: Weigh and meta weigh

Phil/ Framing: I default util but feel free to run something else if u want. I'm familiar with kant, struc vio, and sentimentalism. If ur reading something else thats not intuitive slow down a bit and overexplain.

T/Theory: Went for this a lot, its pretty fun to judge. I default competing interps, yes rvis, drop the debater, normsetting > In round abuse. Chill with friv theory. I generally think disclosure/round reports is true and paraphrasing bad but I def wont hack for them.

Ks: I never rlly ran these args but I've hit them—T framework is a godsend. If u run them i'm almost assuredly not familiar with your lit. Err on the side of overexplaining it to me like I'm a 5 year old. Not a fan of alts that do essentially nothing. Complex K debates are where I trust myself the least in making the right decision.

Tricks: Feel free to run. Idk why this needs to be said but if ur just gonna dump a bunch a paradoxes u need to read truth testing. I rlly like eval after, indexicals, and theory tricks.

Presumption: If there's no offense at end of round, I default presumption goes to the team that lost the flip.

Feel free to post round me.

If you have any questions ask me before the round.

Speaker Points: I give some pretty mid speaks based on strategic decisions you make so don't go for everything.

I'll usually start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.

bsas '22

qualified for toc

tech>truth

allenliang2020@gmail.com

Note for Churchill: idk the topic, explain it well

(i'm kinda out of touch so i might be a little slow so i may have you repeat stuff in speech, if you want me to catch everything just send the docs for constructive/rebuttal and i'll flow everything i missed during cross -> anything said in cross must be brought up in speech to count)

if you have any specifics, i'll tell you in person

PF basics:

1. extend everything you want to go for in summary/ff or else it's crossed off the flow
2. COLLAPSE before FF or your arguments prolly won't be fleshed out
3. sticky defense isnt real
4. if your argument isnt backlined, it's terminal unless the other team fails to extend the frontline
5. give comparative weighing, dont just say we outweigh on magnitude and not compare, give reasons to prefer your weighing mechanism and give warrants to why you outweigh
6. win off whatever you want, turns, AD/DA, contention, independent voter
7. no DAs/ADs in 2nd rebuttal it's kinda abusive towards 1st summary lol
8. need doc if you're gonna spread(>1000 words in doc/4 mins)
9. preferably i just get the doc in general actually cause i'm washed up and retired
10. explicitly say to concede defense to get out of turns(but warrant it or else i might not buy it)
11. take advantage of dropped arguments
12. your speaks will be fine
13. run theory at your own risk, run Ks at an even higher risk
14. if the debate is super close, i will call for cards only if there was a clear back/forth between 2 cards and there is no resolve
15. have fun

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

Policy: TFA State Update: (Ask me questions! This is an important tournament, I really do not like how hostile some judges can be to debaters. Y'all deserve to be able to ask whatever you want before the round).

Really important: You have got to slow down a bit for me. If you are not clear, you are doing yourself a disservice. The clearer you are, the faster you can go in front of me. The less clear you are means the more you should slow down.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the 2nr/2ar, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 20 seconds of the 2nr/2ar. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last rebuttal.

I have not judged much on this topic. So start slower and work your way up to full speed. If I cannot understand you I will say clear.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar. Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Public Forum

Update a la Churchill on the Kritik- I am down like Charlie Brown for the kritik in PF (understatement). However, if you introduce the K in rebuttal I will be willing to evaluate theory args in response.

TLDR: Tech>truth, I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum this year. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): I like these debates. Reading a framework IE structural violence or explaining via an observation how the debate should be framed is helpful because it clarifies for me how to evaluate the debate. I like this in debates, it makes things easier for me. If you are reading a framework be sure to extend it in every speech and use it as a lens to explain your impacts in the debate/weigh your impacts against your opponents.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: This is silly. Disclosure theory is silly. Do not read it in front of me. Do not read any theory arguments in front of me. I will not vote on them. With that being said arguing that your opponents are not fitting within the bounds of the resolution is a good argument to make if it applies. If you make this argument and have warrants and impacts do not be afraid to go for it in final focus.

Non-traditional stuff: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. That being said avoid jargon. You can make a lot of creative arguments in this event, do so while avoiding weird debate jargon. No this does not contradict the "theory" section above. I will weigh claims about someone not fitting within the bounds of the resolution vs explanations about why a team is satisfying the burden of the resolution. Whoever does the better debating will win this question in the debate.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

GBX 2023

- send constructive and rebuttal docs with cards to both emails before you read them

- set up the chain BEFORE you come into round

- I have done a considerable amount of topic research

- I think open source is a good norm

Westwood '22

Coach for Westwood

Email for email chains (I want to be on it)/questions/anything really: amoghdebatedocs@gmail.com AND westwoodpfdocs@gmail.com

I will flow every speech and be focused on the round. I love the activity and know how much time you put in - you deserve a judge that pays attention and that cares. Go as fast as you want but be clear. More often than not you don't need to read 4 contentions or go as fast are you're going - quality is way more important than quality.

Speaks are a function of strategy (good collapsing, weighing, going for dropped turns and doing it well, etc) and practices (disclosure, cut cards, etc). I do not care what you wear. Speaks will range from 28 to 30 unless you do something unacceptable.

I will research most, if not all, of the topics. So, you can assume I have background knowledge, but if you're reading something super specific explain it and your acronyms.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

If you want a short version - I agree with Akhil Bhale.

Non-negotiables:

- No prep stealing (it's quite obvious)

- Have the cut card for any piece of evidence that you read easily accessible (bare minimum), if your going to send links to large PDFs please strike me.

- I am uninterested in listening to and will not vote for arguments that endorse self-harm or suicide. Spark and other hypothetical impact turns are fine.

- Do not use racist/sexist/misogynistic rhetoric.

- I will "flow" cross-examination and it is binding (it exists for a reason). I hate it when teams don't understand their own arguments and this is the time to make it obvious. Probably won't be a voting issue but could be made into one.

"Preferables" (your speaks will automatically improve but I won't hold it against you unless convinced otherwise by theory etc.) :

- Disclose previously broken positions on the wiki (personally think new Affs/Negs are good but that is a debate to be had)

- Read from cut cards

- Send constructive and rebuttal docs with all the cards before your speech. I will never call for specific evidence after the round. If I think the evidence will decide or influence my decision I will go to speech docs to read it, if it isn't there too bad. Sending evidence after the round is just a way for debaters to send new evidence they didn't read, highlight evidence, cut parts out - I don't want to deal with that. TLDR: It helps both you and the debate if you send docs. I am a sucker for good evidence. If you have some really good evidence make sure I know about it - call it out by name. Again not an excuse for not debating - don't hide behind your evidence.

- Pre-flow before the round.

General:

- Tech > Truth (to an extent) - if an argument is dropped it is considered true but still has to be an argument for you to win on it (ie. it must be extended with uniqueness/link/internal link/impact), new implications or cross applications justify new responses to the specific implication. If you blow up a 2-second rebuttal blip - my threshold for responses won't be very high. More stuff on progressive arguments later.

- Read whatever you want to read - do your own thing. More on specific progressive arguments later.

- Open CX is fine (both people can speak/explain during cross-examination). Flex prep is fine and often good (ask questions during your prep time).

- 2nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline everything on the argument you're going for. Efficiency will be rewarded with good speaks. Defense is not sticky. Most "weighing" is new responses more on that later - at the latest 1st final but that's probably way too late and justifies 2nd final responses which isn't good for you anyway. 0 risk is a thing, but most defense will be evaluated on a probabilistic scale. 1st summary is the last time, I will flow new arguments. (There is a distinction between new arguments and new weighing - be careful.)

- Most substantive questions will be revealed on a probabilistic scale - comparative risk of the arguments. In 99% of debates, both sides will win some offense so comparative weighing and impact calculus can and often decides rounds. Procedural arguments often have to be evaluated on a yes/no basis (does the AFF violate the interp, RVIs or no RVIs, etc.)

- Turns. I love them but they are often done terribly. 99% of link turns need uniqueness to be offensive (ie. If the AFF tells me there is no negotiation in the status quo, and the NEG goes for a link turn about how the AFF makes negotiation worse, I have no idea what the impact to negative negotiation is.) Impact turns are also often interesting debates - if the link is contested (I hope it isn't if you're going for an impact turn) or if your opponents go for a different argument, then extend it clearly. If both teams seem to agree to the link and it just becomes an impact debate, I don't really care about link extensions too much. There are only 2 types of turns. Link turns and impact turns. New DAs and ADVs are often labeled as turns but you won't fool me and don't try - more on that later.

- Weighing. Also something I love but is often done wrong. There are three weighing mechanisms: probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a subset of those three (ie. scope is a subset of magnitude) or isn't a weighing mechanism (ie. clarity of the strength of the link or whatever people like to say.) Unless convinced otherwise (which is easily possible), link weighing/debating > impact weighing. I often find that nuclear war outweighs climate change or poverty outweighs death is irrelevant with good link weighing. I will give examples of link weighing below: at the latest these arguments need to be introduced by 1st summary. Probability link weighing are no-link arguments or "mitigatory defense." Stuff like "it is hard for terrorists to get BMDs because of monetary and technical constraints" is definitely link defense and needs to be in 1st summary at the latest. Probability is a function of how much defense you win on an argument, I will not arbitrarily assign probabilities (ie. say climate change is more probable than nuclear war) - you have to explain to me why that is the case which often is just link defense. Timeframe link weighing can be great. Arguments like the NATO bank at the earliest even if created won't get funding for years etc. Magnitude link weighing is really good and often underused (ie. "scope of solvency"). Solving bitcoin emissions won't solve climate change writ large etc. That being said, I can be convinced that impact weighing comes before link weighing. Arguments like extinction first and Bostrom and viable and can also be good. I hope everyone knows what impact weighing is so not going to go too in-depth on that. Last note - turns case is really, really good and also really, really underutilized in PF. Conflict probably ends negotiations, climate change probably makes war more likely, economic growth probably resolves underlying conditions for crime, etc. These types of arguments can really help you frame a round and establish why your came case comes first. Impact weighing and turns case can come by 1st final by the latest.

- Try or die can be convincing if done well. It is often a great strategy if you are going for an extinction impact and the NEG has conceded uniqueness. This is not an excuse for not frontlining - 0 risk is a thing. Timeframe is a really good weighing mechanism in try or die/extinction first debates and can often implicate probablity.

- Framing debates are also really interesting - extinction first etc. Framing arguments are not a substitute for link debate but a supplement. If you win policy paralysis and the other team wins a very large risk of their extinction scenario, the other team has probably won the round.

"Substance":

- Quality > quantity. Not too many interesting thoughts here. Good weighing and link debating wins rounds - avoiding clash, being shifty, and dumping blips doesn't.

- Empirics aren't arguments but can help your position combined with warrants. If you have good empirics that are specific to the mechanism of the resolution/your argument you're probably in a good spot.

- I could care less about quantified impacts. They are often random predictions by conspiracy theorists or terrible models. Even worse, debater math. I would much rather your impact be economic growth than some math you did with different studies and percentages. Extinction is an impact, recession is an impact, etc - I do not care about your 900 million card.

- Kicking case in reading a new DA/ADV in 2nd rebuttal is a bad idea. You essentially just wasted half of the debate. I will have a very low threshold for responses and encourage theory. This is different from reading 4 minutes of turns (ie. kicking case and just going for prolif good). I am perfectly fine with that, in fact, that would be quite fun.

Below are some thoughts on progressive argumentation. Don't read these arguments to win rounds - it's quite obvious. You disclose for the first time and read disclosure theory, change from full text to open source for 1 tournament to meet your interp, etc. I will still vote for it if you win but your speaks won't be great. Also, don't read progressive arguments just to beat novices - I will give you the worst speaks I possibly can.

Theory:

- I have mixed feelings on disclosing broken interps - could be convinced either way. In general, meta-theory is interesting and under-used.

- Topicality is also interesting. Define words in the resolution. Intent to define and evidence quality is extremely important. Unlike most theory debate, precision, your interpretation, and the evidence matter a lot more to me than the limits/ground debate.

- While I will not "hack" against these arguments be aware it is an uphill battle if you are defending paraphrasing good or disclosure bad. If you win your CI and everything on the flow of course I will still vote for you. If it is a close-round, you know which way I am probably going to vote.

- I default to competing interpretations, no RVIs, spirit of the interp, and drop the debater. I can easily be convinced otherwise. If paradigm issues are dropped/agreed upon they do not need to be extended in every speech. If the debate devolves to just theory under competing interps - I am voting for the better model of debate, I could not care that you won no RVIs (personally, no RVIs doesn't mean you can't win on a counter-interp in my mind)

- Reasonability is a good tool against mis-disclosure (open-source versus full text etc) and frivolous shells. You should still read a counter interp - but explain why the marginal differences in your models of debate are outweighed by substance crowd out etc.

- Read your shell the speech after the violation (if they paraphrase in 2nd rebuttal - feel free to read paraphrasing theory in 1st summary.) Theory after that is fairly late and really hard to have good clash, thus probably will result in intervention but if you think its necessary read it (bad language etc.)

- For some reason, small school counter-interps are quite popular and I get why (I read them myself a few times.) However, I am inclined to believe that arbitrary entry limits are just that arbitrary. Also, a lot of small schools are in big prep groups with a lot of resources, or just don't have a lot of people competing etc.

- Theory is unaccessible is a terrible argument - there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to any other argument.

- Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

K's:

- "Substantive Ks" like Cap K or Security K are great but probably will just be evaluated as DAs or impact turns. Reading it as a K is often just an excuse to get out of the uniqueness debate, and when your alternative is just rejection, I don't think that gets you very far.

- Non-topical positions are also fine - I am familiar with most of the stuff people read in PF, but if you're reading high-theory or something confusing - slow down and explain it. I won't vote for something I can't explain back to you. This is my one exception to disclosing new Affs/Negs. I strongly believe non-topical positions should be disclosed before the debate to allow for clash.

- I slightly lean towards T/FW against K affs/negs probably because K debate in PF isn't done very well - but can easily be convinced otherwise. K teams should go for impact turns, weigh the K against the shell, and have a good CI that mitigates the limits offense. Do not read a K based on research about x argument and discourse and then make a prepouts bad argument on theory - that doesn't make too much sense. Weighing is really important in these rounds and I find that the theory teams get away with some stuff too easily (answer stuff like fairness is key to participation which comes before your method.)

- I am also down for a method v method debate, or PIKs etc. Conditionality is probably good against a new K aff/neg (ie. fine with T/FW combined with a PIK etc)

- Long pre-written overviews are not as useful as line-by-line and specific weighing.

- Also, please have an actual method. If you say "vote for me because I pointed this out," you probably won't get my ballot.

- Paraphrased Ks are a big no. Non-negotiable.

If you got this far, thank you for taking the time to read this. If you have any questions feel free to email me whenever. I will always disclose unless the tournament explicitly tells me not to. Postrounding is good if it is constructive and educational - but this time, I will have already submitted my ballot and will not be able to change it. Feel free to email me questions after the round as well.

bsas '22
flow judge, toc qual, tech>truth
pikuaja@gmail.com
would like to be on any email chain

if you have specific questions or anything else, please ask before round

focus on clarity

structural violence impacts are pretty viable for me

PF: Competed mainly in PF so pretty familiar with how it works but have not competed in a couple of years

1. extend everything you are going for super clearly, will vote on pretty much anything if justified well
2. make sure to collapse and be clear with your arguments
3. voting for probability over scale unless given good reason to
4. comparative weighing is preferred
5. send docs if spreading
6. no new stuff in FF
7. extend dropped arguments, especially, don't just say it was dropped
8. pretty generous with speaks
9. +0.5 speaks if you make a pokemon reference

Email chain: owenmm@utexas.edu

tech only, no truth.

default TT

I did PF for Flower Mound, and I broke at TOC (2x qual), TFA (2x qual), NSDA (2x qual), and a bunch of natcirc tourneys (if that matters to you, idk).

PF

Skip grand cross and I'll like you (but if you actually have questions to ask please don't skip because of me).

I only give less than 29.9 if you give me a reason to.

Obviously, I will tank if you are disrespectful -- including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. -- just be a good person please.

and I only give 30 if you dedicate the debate to Sid Thandassery before constructive.

for all: quality > quantity — I need good warranting, explanations, implications, etc. It’s much easier to vote on one really good argument than a few bad ones.

Theory (1)

default: DTD, CIs, norm-setting, fairness > edu, no RVIs

but it doesn't matter, make any arguments, I don't hack (unless you disclose full-text, then good luck)

LARP (2)

extend, probably nothing is sticky.

collapse, signpost, be organized

weigh and meta-weigh

Tricks (1-2)

please run tricks in PF.

Phil (2-3)

I read phil and I like it, but don't be too crazy.

K (4)

I have no problem with them, I'm just not familiar with many Ks. Run whatever you want, but if you want me to vote right, I can prolly follow Cap, Set Col, most Pess Ks, and maybe Psycho.

LD

Speaks are based on strategy.

Bonus if you mention Sid Thandassery, any ex-Flower Mound debater, or bring me caffeine.

Basically same arg prefs as PF

CX, LD, IE and DE at Winston Churchill High School for 2 years (2013-2015)

email: jarrid.james@gmail.com

CX:Haven't done this in a while; don't know much about this topic so explain any abbreviations and special key terms. Considering I haven't been in the debate world in a while, please slow down on tag lines and analytics. Also the only Kritik I feel comfortable with would be cap, however, If you would like you could read something else but you have to over explain it and slow down.

LD:More of a traditional judge (UIL) but if you want to read policy arguments that's fine. Theory is good as long as it's not abusive; no RVI. Don't read tricks and spikes

parkert@ltisdschools.org

Background: I'm a first year debate coach at Lake Travis (Austin, TX). I'm also a lawyer and teacher. I debated mostly LD but graduated HS in 2004.

ALL Debate: I'm a mostly tech judge, with some exceptions below. I will generally not vote on frivolous theory. If you want to make an argument about abuse or norm violations, I am open to it, just make sure you're telling a clear story here.

I will usually drop speaks for repeatedly telling me that your opponent dropped or conceded an argument that was clearly addressed. Point out drops, but don't lie to me. (this is not about a mistake or accidental statement, this is for the people who compulsively say that every argument was "clean conceded" when they weren't)

For docs, please use speechdrop if at all possible. My stupid school email has a ridiculous filter and it will often take a few hours for your email chain to get to me.

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

CX: I'm not generally a policy judge so I am not going to be fluent in the deeper jargon (if you're abbreviating everything in particular). Explain your arguments if you want me to vote on them, don't just blip through them.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

LD: My LD experience is a bit outdated from the current circuit standard. I am very open to new innovations and outgrowths since I debated, but my fluency in modern off-case argumentation is a bit limited. I'm open to voting on those, but you'll need to explain them well and be clear with your voters. I don't have any strong feelings on policy vs philosophical approaches. Tricks suck. If I don't understand the argument, I won't be voting on it.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

PF: The above information applies to PF rounds as well, with the added provision that I will reduce speaks for being cruel/disrespectful of opponents (and I don't like that I have to put that here for PF)

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

Congress: I am looking for both strong content and speaking for my Congress ranks. One without the other is not a recipe for a good score. Speakers that use the bulk of their speech rehashing earlier points usually get scored down. Clash is good, just make sure you're not mischaracterizing the opposition's argument when you do so.

Particularly incisive points (especially as clash points) are likely to draw my attention. I do pay attention during questioning - strong lines of questioning (or defenses to your own position) are likely to result in a higher rank.

You should be cognizant of the speech you're giving in a round. For example, if you're giving a sponsorship, you should be explaining how this bill solves the problem you're trying to address.

For POs: Generally the best POs are the POs where I barely notice them as the round runs smoothly. I typically rank good POs well, but rarely will they get the 1 unless it's a particularly weak round.

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

Extemp: Similar to Congress, I'm looking for both Strong content and strong speaking skill. One without the other will rarely receive top ranks on my ballot. I'm not looking for a specific number of sources, but good/varied sourcing is important.

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

Interp: Interp events are where I definitely have the least experience. Generally, though, I'm pretty standard as an interp judge - i'm looking mostly for strong characterization and (in the relevant events) narrative structure.

Hi,

I have debated extensively many years ago (when I was in High School and University), but in a different country and an entirely different format. I have been learning about Public Forum from my son (a Public Forum debater), and I have been reading up about this format.

Always Tech > Truth.

Please be sure to speak slowly ... fewer points that are clearly and slowly explained are better than multiple points that are rushed. Do add me to the email chain @ rajupatil@gmail.com

Please be respectful, and professional during the round. It is best not to show any condescension or irritation towards the opponents' point of view. Always avoid discriminatory and/or hostile beliefs and behaviors based on stereotypes, fear, and ignorance (i.e., strictly avoid -isms and -phobias such as racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia etc)

Please weigh, collapse and extend your warrants. Second rebuttal has to frontline.

In final focus, please be brief with your points and make sure to weigh and explain why I should cast my ballot for your team.

I am a lay judge, but I have judged a reasonable number of rounds. You may speak fast, as long as you are understandable. Cite your sources as much as possible. If you call for evidence outside of cross-ex, you will be using your prep time. Also, please avoid asking really long questions during cross-ex, andactually let the other team answer. I give speaker points based on strategy and presentation. I may dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, please start an email chain and add me at subashri.r@gmail.com.

Debate is about having fun, so enjoy it!!

Flower Mound High School '23, Debated PF 2 Years, Outrounds of Gold ToC, TFA, and Nats Senior Year

Email for chain: ameysemail@gmail.com

Sending docs before speeches is preferable.

TLDR: Tech>Truth, read fun stuff. Cool with spreading even though I can’t flow it that well, just send a doc. Collapse well, extend clearly, weigh, win. I really like debating and judging theory, defaults are below.

LARP: Basic substance paradigm, check out Eli Glickman, Amogh Mahambare, or William Erard's paradigms for good info. Weighing is really important and lots of teams don’t know how to do it right. Weighing arguments in an intelligent manner will make it easy for you to get my ballot. Organization and signposting are also really important and make it easier for me to vote. DON’T BE SCARED OF COLLAPSING ON A SINGLE ARGUMENT, EVEN A TURN. I really enjoy clean collapsing even if it’s on a turn on your opponents case. If it’s strategic, it’s a really good and fun way to win my vote and I’ll probably boost your speaks too.

Framework: I really enjoy philosophical frameworks and arguments. If you have a unique way of looking at and framing a certain resolution, please go for it. Kant and Util are pretty interesting to me and I have the most knowledge on them, but feel free to run other frameworks as well if you can explain them properly.

Theory: Very open to voting on theory especially regarding disclosure practices. I default to reasonability, no RVIs, and DTA. Give me reasons as to why your opponent has to provide a CI, be dropped for reading a shell, or be dropped for a violation and I’ll vote on them though.

K’s: Little to no experience against or running these, will require a lot of explanation if you want to run complex Kritiks but of course I’m open to voting on them. Probably have the most understanding of Mollow out of any Kritikal argument.

Tricks/TT: No problem with them, but try not to run them in Pf if you don’t have a decent understanding.

Speaks: I’ll mostly separate speaks from the actual debate and award them based on presentational ability, but strategic decisions and good organization also go a long way. I’ll give you a +.5 boost if you shout out a friend that’s quit debate OR Sid Thandassery before your speech.

IE: My priorities are presence, dynamism, clarity, eye contact (with any/all of the audience, not just me), and creativity. Watch your hands and avoid filler words.

Debate: My email address is pete.trevino@nisd.net . You can add me to your email chain at your discretion.

I'm not a fan of spreading. I will look at your case, but if you can't be understood without it, I will count it against you. We're not at a cattle auction.

Try to make claims that are verifiable, and have your evidence ready.

Speaker points are awarded according to rank; see my IE notes above.

I debated at Westlake for 4 years.

I can’t hear that well so please speak clearly if you’re talking fast unless you want docked speaks.

Not familiar with progressive argumentation, you can run it if you want practice just don’t trust I can evaluate it without explanation.

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions!

Evidence or anything goes to cmwehring@gmail.com

Westlake 21, Wharton 25

Debated for five years. Currently coach for Potomac Debate Academy. I like warrants and implications a lot.

- If you go a regular pace and win the round, I will award you with fantastic speaks. Don't go fast for the sake of going fast.

- I will vote for the easiest path to the ballot. Do extend and do weigh. If you don't, don't expect to get >27.5 speaks.

- Time yourself and your opponents. No one does and it is annoying.

- Preflow before round. If you show up to round not preflowed, I will dock speaks heavily.

- Can and will evaluate prog. I am best at evaluating theory, and then more basic Ks. If you're gonna run anything be very clear about how it functions in the round. I am now three years out from my last K debate. I have forgotten a lot. Please run things well.

- Docking speaks a lot if it takes a long time to pull up evidence.

- If you disclose, lmk and I'll add 0.5 speaks.

You can email me at xyz85678@gmail.com or FB message me. Sometimes I don't see message requests though.

Howdy Everyone!

I'm currently a student studying Political Science at Texas A&M University. I competed in speech and debate for four years, primarily in Extemp and Congress, but I also have experience competing in World Schools, Info, Oratory, Prose, and Duo. Basically, I've been around the block. I prioritize making competitors feel comfortable in every round and seek to help y'all grow through every ballot. I'm always excited to judge and do this because I believe in the value of this activity. I aim to make my paradigms an explanation for why I vote the way I do and do not expect competitors to change the way they compete just because I am their judge. Good Luck!

Congress

I prioritize unique and complex arguments delivered in a persuasive and passionate style. While I subscribe to the sentiment that "it's Congressional Debate, not Congressional Speech-Making," the delivery of arguments does play a role in my ballot. An ideal speaker should embrace the roleplay of congress and act as if the issue they are speaking on has real-world implications. Dramatic and humorous styles are fine with me as long as each style is used appropriately. Speeches should be delivered extemporaneously, and avoid reading off your computer or flow. That said, your arguments are the first and foremost factor in my decision (consider performance a "soft factor"). I like to see arguments that you couldn't make sitting in a round but rather are well-researched and take a more nuanced approach to the legislation. Source quality is a BIG factor for me. Avoid cable news wires and prioritize think tank and journal articles. If you do not have a single well-researched argument in your speech, your speech is a "round clarification" speech, or it only builds off the same thing other speakers have said, I will not look favorable on that speech. Being a yappologist will only get you so far. Additionally, BE CLEAR. SIGNPOST. PLEASE SIGNPOST. Also, and this goes without saying, CLASH. CLASH OFTEN. CLASH STRATEGICALLY. CLASH WELL.

I understand the impact of precedence and recency and am sensitive to understanding how that can impact the round. However, I will also stress that competitors are responsible for strategizing their precedence and recency.

Presiding officers should be accurate and efficient. A PO's best measure is how much debate time their chamber has. They should not detract from the debate or make mistakes in precedence and recency. They should correct any mistake they make. Basically, if you blend into the background, you are succeeding. I understand how hard being a PO is, so don't be discouraged to PO. I will take you into consideration in my ballot.

World Schools

I love Worlds and think that the event is at the intersection of the most important skills this activity offers. As such, I like a well-rounded team. First and foremost, follow the norms of WSD. I enjoy logical arguments that are straightforward and understandable. Make sure your argument has direct links that make sense. Speeches ought to be delivered in an extemporaneous manner. Avoid reading off your case word-for-word. Speak slowly and clearly but also passionately. Please act like you care about the topic being debated. POIs should be frequent but not frivolous- make them mean something. Communicate on the bench to ensure you are not asking POIs repeatedly or simultaneously. I do not have any ideological preferences between principled and practical arguments. If there is a principled argument, I'd like it extended and addressed as an issue in its own right, separate from practical impacts. Other notes:

• Focus on realistic impacts and explain why your impacts matter. Weigh impacts, please
• There is a difference between repeating your arguments and extending them. If you are parroting the first speech and aren't analyzing or comparing impacts, you are doing something wrong
• The reply should narrow the debate into a few key issues and extend the most important clash points. If something is not extended through the reply, I likely will not consider it. Explain to me why you won the round
• I reward teams that are well-researched and keep up with current events. If there is big global news or information pertinent to the rounds' topic, please bring it up. Especially in impromptu motions.