Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I focus on solid and meaningful storytelling. Be genuine and true to the words you are speaking. I was always taught that the only way to successfully tell a story is to have the audience laugh AND cry with you.

• Be RESPECTFUL! The same way you aspire to be a great performer, be a great audience member! Please be respectful of your fellow competitors, as I will take your behavior in rounds into account as a judge.

• Clean and reasonable pantomime/blocking. Your movements/blocking must add onto and enhance your performance, not take away or distract your audience from the message you are giving us.

• Be true to yourself as a performer. Do NOT try to copy off of anyone else’s performance style or take chunks of well-known or unknown performances to build yours. Think and perform outside of the box.

• Have FUN! Speech is meant to be and outlet not a stressor, be passionate and let go through your performances.

• Clear thesis/message. As a judge and audience member, it is extremely important for me to get a CLEAR understanding of your piece’s thesis/argument and overall message. In order to move your audience, we must understand what you are talking about and why you are talking about it.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

• Be specific with the topic at hand. Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.

• If at some point you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

• Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

• Solid, confident delivery style.

• Be RESPECTFUL! The same way you aspire to be a great speaker, be a great audience member! Please be respectful of your fellow competitors, as I will take your behavior in rounds into account as a judge.

• Have FUN! Speech is meant to be and outlet not a stressor, be passionate and let go through your performances.

DEBATE EVENTS:

• Not as familiar, but I look for well spoken, clear, factual speaking.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge so I rely on the debaters and the flow to set both the validity of arguments and the role of the ballot. That means that I'll accept any argument until the other side contests it with argumentation or theory and puts it into play. I really enjoying seeing the rebuttals is weighing of impacts and holistic evaluation that inform my ballot. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents. I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round.

Make it easy for me to vote, weigh the round at the end.

Style/Delivery Preference:

Spreading is fine

You must be clear and articulate.

Slow down/emphasize on your taglines.

Signpost!!

Be respectful and nice to your partner and opponents.

Have Fun :)

TLDR: flow judge, please collapse and weigh, quality > quantity, ok with some speed

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

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

Background

Competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). Judged mostly PF for around a year (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style/Strategy Preference

I can judge speed assuming you send docs, but I’d rather not unless you’re very very confident in your clarity. You should SLOW DOWN in summary and final focus.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link, internal link(s), and impact of the argument you’re going for. To extend the link/IL/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/IL/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants that were introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there’s multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. I default prereq > mag > prob if there's none.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond to it, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I evaluate progressive debate in largely the same way I evaluate traditional debate: I look for who’s winning what offense and then who outweighs in the end. However, I am still MUCH more confident in evaluating traditional substance debate.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness.

I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous. If there's a safety issue, you don't need to run theory; I will stop the round immediately and contact tab.

I will NOT give RVIs.

I will NOT evaluate tricks.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best to evaluate one if you read it, but slow down and explain it to me like it’s my first time hearing the literature.

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

I am a traditional judge and go by the flow. I would like to see the consistency through the entire flow during debate rounds.

Please speak clearly, and do not rush! You'd rather get your point through me, not just throw out your points at me and your opponent(s).

Be polite during cross. Personally I read news everyday and I do research the debate topic for each month before I judge. I respect your opinions on each topic, your job is to explain your arguments logically and convince me!

Make sure your evidences are correct and up to date . I care both technics and truths.

Please track your time accurately. I will not track time for you during debate rounds, but I do pay attention to the time you would spend. If you spend more time as what you have said you would take, it is a cheating to me.

You are not required to send me the case doc. But if you prefer to do so,you can send it to my email: liugr@hotmail.com. I will use it during your case construction phase.

Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.

Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.

If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.

*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.

1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.

3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.

4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.

6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.

7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.

8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).

Currently the Congressional Coach at the Lakeville Debate Team

Congress-Specific Paradigm: I rank based on how well each student utilizes the 3 main canons of rhetoric (ethos, logos, pathos). Ethos is measured by how much you successfully engage in congressional role-playing. Logos is measured by how successfully you structure and present a logic-based argument. Pathos is measured by your overall speaking ability. I prioritize in the following order: argumentation > speaking skills > congressional role-playing.

Please note that strong speaking will never outweigh a poor or incoherent argument. This is a debate category, not speech.

To improve your ranking, I want to see extemporaneous speeches with well-warranted and linked arguments (CWI), regardless if it's a construction, rebuttal, or crystallization speech. Asking well-thought-out questions and responding successfully to questions will improve your rank. Showcasing a well-developed understanding of each bill will improve your rank, even if you don't speak on every bill. I am open to progressive debate, so bend/break the rules IF AND ONLY IF you have a legitimate reason to do so. I want to see clash in round, so don't just repeat what others have argued; instead, give me new information, ideas, whatever. Giving a speech to avoid breaking cycle will also raise your rank even if your speech is less prepped.

POs: Major mistakes WILL cost you. Small mistakes can be forgiven, especially if caught immediately and corrected, but continuous errors will lower your rank. The round relies on you, and judges will catch your precedence mistakes even if the chamber doesn't. I will only provide a high ranking to a successful and accurate PO.

PF/LD/Policy Paradigm

Experience: 4 years of PF in high school in Minnesota (2012-2016), 4 years of intercollegiate Ethics Bowl (2016-2020). I have a B.S. in communication arts (concentration in political rhetoric) and computer science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I've judged PF every year since 2016 and have experience judging Congress, Public Forum, Policy, and Ethics Bowl. I currently work in tech.

Speaking: I prefer clean, concise, and persuasive speech. This will affect the speaker points, but my preference will not interfere with who wins each round. I will do my best to keep up with spreading, but I am not as experienced. Any excessively rude remarks will seriously hurt your speaker points score. Be polite.

Argumentation: I will follow any theory or progressive-level argumentation presented to me, but again I am not as experienced with this so be as clear as possible. Be consistent, use warrants as needed, and provide strong links into impacts. I will not intervene on a weak link chain. I will intervene on poor/inaccurate evidence.

Judging: I attempt to come in with an open mind to the best of my ability. My choice depends on everything said during the round and nothing more. The winner of each round will be determined based on the framework provided to me, the best-substantiated framework if there is conflict, any progressive framework if argued, or a broad act utilitarian cost-benefit analysis as default. I will weigh the impacts of each side based on that framework and pick up the side that provides the best world. I advise extending your arguments consistently, engaging directly with your opponent's responses, and explaining why your arguments ultimately outweigh your opponent's.

I am happy to answer any questions or concerns and provide feedback as needed. Feel free to contact me at sarakrabon@gmail.com

P.F.

The biggest thing is to debate P.F., don't treat it like policy. Please be clear about when you are switching contentions and be sure to weigh your impacts clearly, don't assume that us judges are making the same connections that you are. If you run a one contention case, please have strong links. Please spell out your impacts, Imperialism isn't an impact, you need to tell me why imperalism is bad. As a judge I won't let my background influince my decision, but that does meen you need to tell me exactly what your impacts meens in terms of qountifiable impacts, number of deaths, cost of monye, increce in crime, global destabilisation, that kind of thing.

Congress:

I've been judging Congress for 6 years now, and of course, all the basic things are important: good projection, good variation in vocal tone and volume for emphasis, and most importantly, a cohesive, original argument. In addition, please be respectful of your competitors; assertive speech styles are fine, but avoid ad hominem attacks. Similarly, when asking questions, don't interrupt the answerer when they haven't even finished a sentence yet; again, find the line between assertive and just plain rude. Make sure your introduction doesn't have a jarring shift in tone when compared to the rest of your speech. Lots of people enjoy funny intros, but they don't really work if you give a speech about war crimes, for example. Crystalizing is good, but if you have an entire speech that's just crystalizing, you end up with something that is more like 6 30-second long speeches instead of a single 3-minute speech, so don't go overboard with it. Make sure if you use the same arguments as a previous speaker, you do something new with it, or go in greater depth in a specific aspect of the argument. Otherwise, all you're doing is telling the judges that you thought the previous speaker did a really good job.

A smaller thing, but it still bugs me when it happens, please don't use debate lingo in congress when it doesn't make grammatical sense without a debate background, for example "sqo solves" is not something that makes sense unless you do debate and this isn't the place for that.

Email: Oscarh.rich@gmail.com

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Hi, I am a parent and lay judge. I do not know jargon or technical terminology. Please speak clearly. Good luck!