junior pf debater at seven lakes (the 1 in seven lakes AR, I copied this from my dear compañera Siri) anshika12agrawal@gmail.com

2x tfa qualifier, 1x gtoc qualifier

i judge like BRYCE PIOTROWSKI.

tech > truth, links > weighing. you NEED warrants and impacts– tell me why the argument ur telling me matters

this is how i go through the round:

i look at weighing first and whatever wins that i'll look at first. if u win weighing but ur losing the link, u don't win the argument and i look at the other argument. if there is no weighing, i presume the best extended and argued arg.

don't do isms

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, i enjoy fast debates but you still have towarranteverything

i rly do not like paraphrasing, pls readcut cardsand have good evi ethics

progressive args

i like prog args

for k's, i understand nontopical ks a bit more and am only familiar w/ topical set col, sec, and cap

if you run framework, use it to actually frame the round!

paraphrasing is bad, disclo is good, trigger warnings are bad, round reports are meh

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy.

have fun and learn

Here are some general things about how I will judge, but feel free to ask me questions in round for clarification. (I have bolded the key parts of what you should know, so if you're on a time crunch just read those)

I was a national qualifier in PF and third in the district in LD, please interpret that as you will. I have also done 7 events, and have broken in 5 of them while only being a win away from breaking in the other two. Those events are DX, IX, LD, PF, CX, extemp debate and Congress. I will judge pretty technically.

I will disclose after round after my ballots are submitted if you ask me to. I will not change my mind on my vote and the ballot will already be submitted, but I'm happy to answer questions about it. If im on a panel I will disclose if the other judges do as well.

In terms of what I allow in round, it totally depends on your opponents. This means that, with opponent permission, the use of jargon, fast talking and whatever else is allowed unless I specifically say no. Note however, please no spreading if youre not in cx. I will not flow what I cannot understand, and I will not get on an email chain or a speech drop or whatever. Basically if I cant understand it/ in order to understand it I need to read off of something I wont flow it. In non-CX events its usually not standard practice to spread. You can also ask me before round if your speed will be okay/ ask me after speeches if it was okay. I will try to be as obnoxious as possible with a loud pen drop if I stop flowing so you will be aware of it. I will also keep time, but please do not rely on me for it. Sometimes I forget, typically I do not. If your opponent goes over a speech or prep by five seconds, you can call out “time” to stop them. However, please use this only if you're sure they've gone over. If my timer isn't over then they'll be allowed to continue. Additionally let me know when you start prep, when you finish prep, and how much you used.You dont need to ask me to use it though as long as you have prep left.

Additionally, no progressive argumentation if youre not in policy. Unless you can actually prove solvency for your argument and how this round specifically will have a meaningful impact on the debate space ill literally submit a ballot for the other side and take a nap. If you run a K in an event that isn’t policy I won't flow it, even if you try to disguise it. I also will not and will never buy disclosure theory, no matter the event.

For spectators, keep in mind that YOU are responsible for the spectators you bring into the round. Spectators should be quiet the entire round, including prep time, and should not leave when there is a speech or cross ex happening (basically only during prep)If you bring in poorly behaved spectators it will reflect in your speaks. Additionally, if any spectators are doing something that makes you uncomfortable, feel free to ask them to stop. They are simply there to observe and should in no way interfere. I prefer they sit behind the competitors as to minimize distractions, and also ask permission of the opponent before entering.

Please also note that while it is okay to get aggressive in a round, rudeness and disrespect are generally easy ways to get low speaks/ lose the round. No matter the judge, it is REALLY HARD to side with a rude team. Do not yell, do not belittle, don't scoff, or anything else that is generally disrespectful.

More specifically on how I judge, ill prioritize voting issues like this:

1. Weighing: This will go to how well your arguments develop through the round. Having a good impact will be the way to win this one. Please do not be afraid to weigh and call out specifically what the most important arguments in the round are. Unless your opponent attacks this and tells me to prioritize other arguments, if this goes conceded ill rank the importance of arguments in the order you told me to.

2. What I actually buy: This is about how your argument actually stands in the round. A solid link chain and good responses to opponents will win you this. I can buy any argument if it has a good link chain, but its not all about who can get the nuclear war impacts first as well. Make sure it makes sense, and spend time with extending if you think its necessary for me to understand

3. Argumentation: This is more the general skill of both debaters. Being able to effectively respond and structure your speeches, as well as efficient use of time is how you get this one.

4. Respectfulness: I severely dislike disrespect in the debate space. Debate is fun if you let it be fun. Ive already gone into this earlier though. Just generally be nice to your opponent.

I will give out speaker points starting at a 28.

To raise speaks) Effective use of time, respectfulness, being clear, having good link chains, effectively responding to arguments, good weighing, and good etiquette are all good ways to raise your speaks

To lower speaks) Basically the opposite of the raising speaks. Being disrespectful is almost an automatic 26 or 25.

PF specific stuff:

• The second rebuttal responds to the opponent's case and also the first rebuttal. If they don't, then the first speakers have every right to claim their responses as dropped.

• If you're doing the coin flip the other side calls. You need to flip where the other side can see it clearly. I prefer you flip in front of me, but if not its okay.

• Please try to stay on the same page as your partner, if I hear wildly different argumentation its hard to evaluate. Consistency is key.

• Please be respectful in grand cross. I know its easy to get carried away, but, if you're able to control it that reflects positively on you as a speaker

• First speaker gets first question unless they dont want it.

• Extensions are okay but not really necessary for me. I've already heard your case. If you have a confusing link chain and want to use it to clarify thats fine.
• Cross is listened to but will not count unless its brought up in your speeches.

LD specific stuff:

• I have only competed in one LD tournament, so I am not the absolute most familiar with everything. At least not like I am in PF.

• Value debate kind of defines everything for me. I will weigh arguments under whatever fw I buy the most.

• I really dont mind skipping cross if you dont know what to ask.

• Again, no progressive argumentation. I have dabbled in policy enough to know it when I see it. Even if you try to veil it.
  
  

Overall: Just have fun with it. I only judge novices and so please dont be afraid to ask me questions, ill never vote you down for it. Debate is supposed to be a really fun activity, so dont stress over it and just generally let yourself have fun.

third year debater

pf :)

LD/PF

• spreading is fine as long as you send a doc (td.trishadas30@gmail.com)
• tech>truth but your warrants need to be well explained
• weigh throughout the round; i won't do the work for you
• i don't care about cross but don't be mean please
• speaks will start at 28 and move up or down based on performance
• mention taylor swift and i will be happy

have fun!! :))

tech judge, have 2 silver bids so i know what i'm doing

be loud

have fun ill give good feedback trust

ill give pretty high speaks as long as you try and give the best speech you can (typical average is around 28-29)

pls add tharoon.eswar@gmail.com to the email chain

tldr- add me to the email chain ashwikaganti2@gmail.com

tech>truth

- i evaluate the link + link weighing before anything else, if there’s no link weighing it will default to warrant weighing then probability/timeframe weighing

- going for less + explaining it well> going for everything + blippy explanations

- i will vote off the flow but good comparative weighing> dumping defense/offense without weighing and warrants

general

- framework debates are good. shaping the round with impacts makes the weighing debate always easier to vote, i'm familiar with structural violence and util- anything else explain well and i'm open to vote off of it

- spreading is fine, just send docs

- i won’t evaluate cross but i will give higher speaks if you make cross fun in a respectful way!

- extend your case in summary if you want me to vote off of it, that means uq, link, impact- the same goes for conceded offense/ turns

- speaks will start at 28- and go up or down based on strategy

T’s/K’s

- theory shells, friv theory, and K’s are cool- keep in mind the implication needs to be good for me to vote off of it- don’t just extend and expect the implication is made off the extension

- i’ve debated against Ks and Ts, the ones i am familiar with are, theory: disclo, anything else explain it well and i’m open to vote off of it, K’s: cap, fem, set col, security ~ anything else needs really good explaining

- ivi’s are cool, don’t be abusive with them

learn and have fun!

Please weigh (tf, magnitude, scope, reversibility, etc.)

I vote on the team who extends case (uq+link+impact)

has the cleanest case (little to no conceded responses on ur case)

and attacks the opponents case the best

If the round has gotten messy, there’s two opposing claims and both sides haven’t cleared up which claim I should vote on, I’ll vote on turns and weighing.

2nd year debater at Seven Lakes

always extend args and remember to have comparative weighing if you want me to consider them

tech>truth

speed is ok with me, but if no one can understand you, set up an email chain or speech drop and send a doc

no prog args (theories and Ks)

give a shout-out to “Tvisha Talwar” to make me happy

speaks start at 27

I’m a first-year out from Seven Lakes where I debated on the nat circuit in PF.

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

If you want me to vote off of an argument, make sure that it’s in either constructive or rebuttal and both summary and final focus.

• I look to link debate first and then choose which argument to prioritize based on the weighing. Meta-weighing is extremely helpful in getting the ballot.

• Weighing should be comparative and have warrants.

• Defense is not sticky

• The second rebuttal must frontline

• Please signpost!!

• Speed is fine, but clarity is super important. You want me to be able to flow your responses. Send docs if it’s going to be fast, but I will not solely flow off of the doc.

• I really care about evidence ethics— don’t paraphrase or lie about your evidence. I will be very receptive to arguments that call this out.

• If there are multiple competing claims, compare evidence (with warrants!) to break the clash.

• Be respectful during the debate and have fun!!

SLHS '25

3rd-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, broke at nationals in policy!

PFer

Please start email chains if spreading/in general, too, for evidence comparison, etc - samkdebate@gmail.com

Please ask me questions before the round!

Debate:

TLDR: pls just signpost and weigh weigh weigh! Give me a clear framing/weighing mechanism (it doesn't have to be an actual framework, just some calculus to allow me to make a decision). I hate intervening b/c it's unfair to both sides - don’t make me. The earlier you start weighing, the happier I am. Don’t worry too much and have fun debating! ᕙ(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)ᕗ Muchos gracias.

Performance:

• Be NICE!

• Ev>presentation any day dawg - just don’t speak inaudibly or else ofc your speaks go down. I start at 28 and move up and down mostly based on strategy.

• Debate is where the logic sparkles: make the round educational and don’t impede on this. For example, experienced debaters reading 13 offs on a brand new novice is just so embarrassing to watch, and not for the novice.

• Go fast and spread if you want! Send a speech doc to my email but slow down on tags and author names or else I 100% will not catch an argument. Also, add analytics on the doc - and slow down during them.

• I default to relatively high (30) speaks unless debaters are unnecessarily harsh, rude, or mean to their opponents in the round (speaks will be dropped so be nice [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]).

• Speaks can and most likely will be bumped up if you make super creative arguments or make me laugh (try to be engaging). Most cheesy dad jokes will make me giggle - but also, don't fool around. Education>entertainment. :|

• Be persuasive and explain your arguments heavily to me ESPECIALLY why I ought to vote for certain things on your side as compared to your opponent (flush out weighing please).

CX:

• It's going to be a long round you might as well be nice to your opponents.

• If spreading, send doc but also pls signpost! There are usually many, many arguments within the round - I will flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• Most of the stuff in LD is pretty relevant here - ie prog arguments.

• The latest speech to bring up new args and cards should be the 1ar/1nr unless it is the most critical aspect of the round. but logically, a new arg in the 2ar/2nr is way too abusive so if the argument is absolutely nothing related to what your side has previously mentioned, I will probably not consider it.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, but reasonability gets iffy so I lean to more counter interp (unless its friv theory, etc)

LD:

• Please signpost well or else I can't flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re trying to make cx binding or poking holes in case, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sort. One more thing! Don’t be hostile - cx is not that deep. Just answer the question and move on unless you’re trying to make a point.

• Make the framework debate reasonable and I will vote for the side with the best argumentation and upholding of said framework. If no framework is read during the round and no debater specifies, I will default to Util.

• Winning framework does not win you the round: it only wins you a favorable offense-weighing mechanism.

• Please try to start weighing in your second speech. 1NC weighing is cool but don’t focus on it too much if you don’t have time. 1AR definitely has to weigh - I think it’s unfair to bring new weighing mechanisms in the 2AR that the 2N could not respond to, but I also have not watched enough LD rounds to know.

• Anything you want me to vote on must be extended into 1/2AR or 2NR, anything else I won't evaluate it and the argument will be dropped.

• No brand new arguments in 2NR and 2AR. Extension of weighing and additional implications of link ins, etc may be evaluated based on the tangency of the starting argument.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, reasonability and counter interp are based on warrants provided.

• Tricks!! No. Depends on my leniency at that point. Also I don’t understand half of them so it’s a wasted effort lol.

• LARP and substance is my strongest form of debating as I understand it the most, just make reasonable arguments and weigh weigh weigh.

• Progressive debate:

• I'm good with generic K's (Cap, set col, imperialism) but exemplify the links and alternatives extremely thoroughly, or else I won’t understand the argument. Identity k's are extremely swag but make sure the thesis and offense are clearly outlined. If you read Baudrillard or any extremely convoluted k that I do not understand, my RFD will send you into a hyperreality so be careful :)

• Phil is something I'm not that great with evaluating, but as long as you extend parts of the syllogism and explain, I will most likely understand it! Kant and Hobbes are what I'm most familiar with. I've heard/read/witnessed some whacky phil, but as long as it makes sense, I can vote on it. (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)

• Theory is great, but don't be abusive with it and call for it only when there is reasonable abuse during the round. I will vote on the T if it is logical and fair!

PF:

Cross apply most of LD but use in context of PF terms

• Default to util calculus unless fwrk is read.

• Quality>quantity (I love super innovative contentions)

• Weighing should be the brunt of your summary - most arguments should become crystalized/set up for final focus

• No substantially new arguments in both

• Spreading and progressive arguments are welcome! Just send a doc. If your opponent cannot understand it, I may or may not. Refer to the LD paradigm for more

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re poking holes or whatever, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sorts. CX is binding only if you specify it lol. Again, don’t be hostile - crossfire is not that deep.

• I personally believe that grand cross is wasteful of time, but it will most likely depend on the situation (aka: if there are questions to be asked, etc). If both sides don't have any questions - I'm cool with splitting grand into 1:30 of prep for both sides.

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

Speech/Interp:

I'm not an avid extemper nor am I an interper - but the events are super cool!

Have fun and be confident in your speaking! Your voice is your best weapon in today's world (sorry cringe)

Main points

• Ask me for time signals before you start. Otherwise, I default to odds down (ie 7 left, 5 left, 3 left, 1 left, grace).

• I don't have any trigger warnings but it’s a good practice to mention any for judges or spectators in the room if your speech contains graphic/sensitive topics.

• Content is as important as presentation (idk how to evaluate and give good feedback on presentation though I know the basics).

• if you forget your speech, take a breath and continue - it happens to anyone; just remember: fake it till you make it! it's about how you recover and not how perfect your speech can be

• I can't reiterate this enough: I am not a speech kid - I like arguing instead of public speaking. I just like statistics and things that quantify arguments. However, I will rank based on how unique your topic is, how well you present it, and how well your overall performance is. Don't change your speech for me just do whatever you think is the best for you!

• I have no idea what speech norms are, but don't be rude in your speech? I know debaters get a lil audacious so please don't be like them :)

• Finally - have fun! do your best. We're all here to learn - especially me! The more passionate you are about your topic, the more I will like your speech.

Interp (specifically)

• In total, I have watched around 15 pieces. Don’t expect me to know how to evaluate the round like other interp judges or lay judges may. I’ll probably rank based on entertainment/emotional appeal/impact of the speech rather than other technicalities. Up to date, I have never judged an interp round, but I have a bunch of friends that I should be learning how to judge from.

• Common note – interp fits are an extreme slay so heads up for compliments!

Extemp -

• Same idea about time signals – ask me for specific ones or else I default to odds down.

• Components that I look for and make critical in the way I rank: Intro (w/ AGD, background, question, and preview ), 3 main points, conclusion (remember to restate your question and recap your points!).

• Include as many citations as you want: I personally use at least 7 as a good measure (intro: 1, 2 per body point) use them wisely, don’t just tell me the Washington Post said that Biden’s approval rating significantly declined and then call it a day - explain it! That’s the point of extemp - give your own analysis and tie it back to your main point.

• I go more content>speaks for novices and I tend to in general - it's just easier for me to evaluate. I know it's a speaking activity and I will rank based on it - but the arguments (and the way they are phrased/explained) are just more compelling and that is how I rank speakers.

• Presentation! Speaker’s triangle is cool! Its basic but super useful - it helps me identify when you're transitioning to another point

• Project! You’re convincing me that your defense/answer to the question you chose is right and reasoning well
  
  

You've made it to the bottom! Thanks for reading; good luck and have fun!

2nd year debater in pf

make sure to extend your arguements through every speech- if it is dropped in summary and brought back up in final focus I won't consider it.

WEIGH!!!!!

any cards you read need to be implicated.

It's fine if you speak fast, just don't spread

I pay attention to cross- I like some friendly fire, but do not be mean- it will affect your speaker points.

Speaker points start at 27

I will vote for the winning team. To clarify, if you win, I'll vote for you. Winning the debate entails being more persuasive and convincing. If you do not win the debate, that means you lost.

Background Info: Hi there! I'm a varsity debater at Katy Taylor, thank you for checking out my paradigms! :)
>> I'm most familiar with LD and PF as I've previously competed in those events. However, I do have relative experience with other debate types such as Congress and Policy/CX but may not be as well caught up to their recent resolutions/topics.

My Paradigms:
[General]
>> I prefer debaters to not spread, unless in Policy. This does not mean I am completely against spreading, but if I can barely keep up with your arguments, spreading is not going to get you points from me. I value coherency and weighing arguments over how many arguments you can address. If you drop an argument from your opponent's case, THAT'S COMPLETELY FINE. Don't stress, address what you can still address.
>> Please keep the debate respectful at all times. Personal attacking such as being disrespectful, calling your opponent underhanded comments like stupid in crossfire (yes it happened to me) will not appeal your case to me.
>> Being non-topical (or off-topic) in crossfire also will not get you points from me. I expect both sides of the debate to remain calm and educational to maximize the experience.
>> I do not mind whether you choose to stand or sit, your choice, whatever you feel more comfortable with.
>> If possible, please give off-the-clock roadmaps when you can. This helps me keep track of what's happening in the round when I am flowing.

[LD]
>> I judge based off how well you respond to your opponent's arguments and vice versa. Other important factors that I suggest you stress in voters is solvency and/or why your value-criterion is something I should prefer (as a judge) over your opponents.

[PF]
>> Do not spread. That is my #1 advice to all PF peeps out there. Don't do it, I definitely will not be giving you points for trying to bomboard your opponent with a list of arguments. Basic guidelines are the same as LD but will be focusing on delivery of speech and impact weighing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WAZZZAAAAAAAPPPPPPPP!

I'm John Lutterman, a first year out from Seven Lakes High School.

Please add me to the email chain

johntlutterman26@gmail.com

For PF

Tech>>>truth

I'll evaluate stuff that stretches the truth, but the further out it goes, the lower my burden of response is, but run what you want lolol.

Strong links win the round, but weighing tells me which link to prefer.

Meta weighing is also alpha (weighing the weighing mechanisms, like probability>magnitude)

(Please weigh comparatively PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)

2nd rebuttal has to frontline

I have no preference for speed - speak how you feel comfortable. However, please try not to go to policy/LD spreading speed, because I want to be able to do your arguments service and catch them all. If you do end up going a lil' fast, then I'll say "clear." You'll get two of those. Additionally, please slow down on tags and authors, and include some space between your cards so it all doesn't meld together. Coherency>>>>>>>

Also, please signpost!!!!

Don’t paraphrase plsssss

For Theory

I am open to theory, however, theory can get convoluted rather quickly, so if you do go for it, make both our jobs easier and don't let it get out of hand.

I will not outright reject frivolous theory, however, the more ridiculous it is the lower my burden for response is. Friv is probably not good for the greater good of debate, but if both teams are getting silly, I'm here for silly. But don't use it to showboat against other teams - especially those who may not have a full grasp of theory yet. Examples include but aren't limited to: shoes, formal clothing, hairnets (sorry guys), Sitting down (@tharoon), technology bad, evidence bad, and author quals. Basically anything that doesn't really have an in-round abuse.

Also, I'd rather have a good debate about the reasons for why your norm should be preferred rather than the "blip-off" many teams like to have. Like, you shouldn't lose the entire round because you didn't say the words "counter" and "interp" in your summary but the ideas were present in every other speech.

When it comes to Competing interps vs reasonability, I'll side with the team that gives me the best warrants to prefer.

when it comes to RVI's I'll prefer the team who gives me warrants on which side to prefer. Also, if you're on the theory-receiving team and lose that you get RVI's, that doesn't cost you the round, but you can't win the ballot by proving their shell false.

I like clever "we meet's," but my burden for response is rather low for the really silly ones.

For Kritikal positions

I understand how a K works, and how to evaluate it, but I didn’t encounter or read too many during my time competing. I’m not the most experienced with K’s, but all should be well, but I just want to be able to give you proper feedback.

For phil

I'm pretty unfamiliar with these kinds of arguments, but if you warrant it well I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability.

For Big Questions

I'm very receptive to the "invisible dancing leprechaun" argument, and countdowns. Please refrain from using countdowns in PF, for the PF community hasn't yet embraced the "countdown technique." Ask Tyler Crivella or Bryce Piotrowski for clarification. Please.

Have fun, enjoy yourselves, and learn something new. I hope this was all helpful.

Peace out,

John Lutterman

email: rayaanmeghani13@gmail.com

PF

Tech >>> truth

For evidence comparisons: If you can't tell me why a postdate matters then it's not a response I'm evaluating. Do actual comparisons that tell me what makes your evidence better than theirs.

Prog: No theory except for Disclosure and paraphrasing or actual in-round abuse. Ks are cool but keep it low-lit like cap and stuff

Speed: Spreading is fine, be really clear, send doc.

Preferences: Weighing from 2nd rebuttal, responses shouldn't be blippy

Speaks: I'll give high speaks but good strategy and pretty speaking helps with it

Signpost!!!

I debated for four years on the national circuit

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: arnavm.218@gmail.com

I judge a lot like Bryce Piotrowski

General:

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

I can flow any speed don't worry just please send doc!

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

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I like impact turns and think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

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

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

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

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

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

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

Part III - Weighing

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

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

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

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

Part IV - Defense:

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

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

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

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I do not think people know how to read theory at all but u can read it on me

DO NOT READ IVIS JUST READ SHELLS IVIS DONT EXIST PLZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

K affs:

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

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

K:

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

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

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

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

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

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

FW:

Util and soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

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

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

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

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

Speaks:

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

Im Andres i'm a junior at Seven Lakes. 2x TFA qualifier, 1x TOC quallifier, PFBC Student Andrescasas0705@gmail.com the email chain.send speech docs with all cut cards before speech

tech > truth, The first thing i evaluate in the debate is if you are winning the link level debate because if you don't win your argument then you don't win the weighing, if both teams are winning their arguments i then go to the weighing, if there is no weighing i default to the best extended and or biggest arg of the round.

don't be disrespectful

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact. - This goes for turns as well, especially if your opponents dont extend their uq and imp for you.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, however (Quality > Quantity)

Arguments made in cross are not binding

Manage your own time i won't be timing you guys

progressive Args

I can evaluate but am not fully familiar and will not fully enjoy the round unless explained REALLLYYY well

K's im familair with are Cap, Col, Orientalism, and Fem.

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy, politeness, and presentation. (may help to be funny)

overall, have fun! i'll disclose and give feedback, feel free to ask questions about my rfd

I'm a LARP debater but I know K's, just make sure to explain more thoroughly if it's some dense K or phil. No trix. Spreading is fine with me, I will tell you, "clear", if I can't hear you properly. Please be on your own speech and prep times. You don't have to monitor your opponent's, but if they're stealing prep or overtime it's your job to call it out. Do not bully novices. Be respectful, be inclusive, and don't take anything too serious.

she/her | pf debater at seven lakes (the 2 in seven lakes AR)

siri@ramineni.name

tech > truth, links > weighing. every argument that you are going for needs warrants + impacts

its novice night – be nice to your opponents pls

i look at weighing, then links. winning weighing doesn't matter if you lose terminal defense on case. you can still win if you win weighing and lose not terminal defense as long as its implicated correctly

read cut cards!

i'm assuming novice night won't have much prog but a few notes

1. framing should be used to actually frame the round. i would prefer an extension but it's not necessary

2. i'm familiar w/ topical set col, sec, cap, fem + race ir

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy

i try to judge like bryce Piotrowski

slhs sophomore

main event: pf

last yr tfa state qual in LD, this year state qual in PF + 1 gold bid to toc

You can run whatever just explain it well--links, warrants, impacts and weigh

if you want to set up an email chain --> anikasud9@gmail.com

add me to the email chain- ameerahsuleman2008@gmail.com

I consider myself a flay judge. No new things in the final focus or 2nd summary. new stuff in 2nd summary is only allowed if you are responding to something in 1st summary.

You get a 10-second grace period if you go over time.

Analytics are kewl if you have warrants. No Ks or theories I still don't understand them despite doing PF for two years

Cross is binding. Tech> truth

I dislike prep stealing, when your opponents or teammate is sending cards/ a doc I don't want to see you prepping. Especially in online tourneys.

Spread at your own risk, there is a good chance that I won't understand what you're saying. If I don't flow it then it doesn't exist. Signposting is also important

I want you to basically sign the ballot for me and tell me why I should be judging for you. Good comparative weighing will get you my ballot

you have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc delete the cards you did not read

post rounding for clarification questions/feedback is fine. postrounding bc u think u won and ur tryna convince me u should not.

speaks

If you're being a jerk to your opponents you WILL get downed for that.

20 = you did something racist/sexist etc

25 = You were a big jerk

27 = Below average speaking wise

28 = Average speaking

29 = Pretty good

30= Excellent, best speaking

My paradigm is the rectangular opposite of Bryce Piotrowski's.

I do pf.

Add me to the email chain: aarushi.thatola@gmail.com .

Don't be rude. If you're running anything progressive, just explain it really well and I'll vote on it. Don't forget to extend and explain your arguments. Weighing is very important. If you're spreading, send a doc but there's a chance I'll miss something.

Have fun! :D

akkivarre@gmail.com

debate:
i am a senior debater/team development chair @ seven lakes (public forum)
i coach debate at sljh and bdjh :)
i am just a varsity pfer so i only judge novices!!

tech > truth

i debate tech so i judge tech, i care a lot more about the arguments you're making rather than how you speak. however that does NOT mean i disregard your speaking style entirely.

PLEEEASE WEIGH - if you make good enough weighing arguments i'm willing to vote on solely that

clash needs to be in the debate - show me how your arguments interact with your opponents arguments

IMPLICATE!! - don't just read evidence or make statements, i need to know what you mean and why i should care. this is the most important thing - i will genuinely not know how to eval the debate unless you extend all your arguments and implicate what you want me to vote on. basically i need warrants. every speech.

quality>>quantity of arguments. analytics are great if they are well warranted and implicated in fact i'd prefer them over random buzz words and cards. also i love ev indicts don't be afraid to call out bad ev in the other team - just do it right.

i, like most judges, am lazy. if you want me to vote on something, say it in your speech CLEARLY and tell me the impact. i will not do the work on the flow for you.

i will give you like 7 seconds of grace time to finish your sentence for a speech, once your speech exceeds longer than that i will stop flowing.

speaks
speaks range from 28-30. if you give me good rhetoric throughout the round you will get higher speaks
i love it when you are funny in round - make it entertaining you don't have to be so serious 100% of the time.

overall have fun, debate is supposed to be enjoyable so don't ruin it for yourself or anyone else.
feel free to ask questions about the topic, the round, your speech, etc. i'd love to give you advice.

if you are online and it looks like i am not flowing - I AM I PROMISE I JUST FLOW ON MY LAPTOP

if you bring me a coca cola i'll really like you

speech:

extemp and impromptu are based on your speaking ability. don't worry sooo much about your sources or your info, lie to me if you have to just make it sound good. i'm a debater i'll believe you if you make it sound like i should.
(don't misrepresent evidence though pls practice good evidence ethics)

Hi! I'm Kush, I'm an LD/Policy debater. None of this is steadfast, if both teams agree, I can judge in whatever way you want. kushvijapure13@gmail.com

Be funny, the activity is supposed to be fun, making me laugh = higher speaks

Debate:

Pref shortcut

1- LARP/Generic Ks (Academy, Baudrillard, Cap, Setcol, Security, Pess)
2- K-affs/Complex Ks
3- Phil (Kant,Hobbes, Butler) + Viable Shells (ie: OS, Contact Info, Disclo, Paraphrasing if its PF, etc..)
4- Friv Theory/ Trix
5/Strike- Dense Phil

General

I strongly believe debate is for the debaters, the shortcut above is how much I understand each argument, not my willingness to vote on it. I will try to evaluate anything put in front of me and will do my best to ensure a fair and equal round, that being said I do like certain things more than others so here are a couple of things that you might want to be wary of (X lies where I fall between the two).

Expressive (your face not mine) -X--------------------------------------- Stoic (your face not mine)

Policy--------------------X-------------------------Kritik

Trix------------------------------------------------X-Args with warrants

Tech-X---------------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards------------X-----------------------Reads every card

Conditionality good-------------------------X----Conditionality bad

States CP good------------X-----------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing---X---------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always util----------------------------------X-----Sometimes not util

UQ matters most---------------------------X-----Link matters most

Fairness is an impact------------X-------------------Fairness is not an impact

Presumption votes aff-----------------------X------- Presumption clearly neg

Try or die--------------X---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard---------------------------X----- Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity---X------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-------X-------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face----------------------X-------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev----------------------------X-------------More ev

"Insert this re highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

expressive [my face not yours]-X------------------------stoic (my face not yours)

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

New affs bad------------------X------------------------Old affs bad

Aff on process competition-------X--------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X---Real arguments

Line by line--X-----------------------------------implied warrants/answer

Speaker Points:

I try to give good points. My general scale is as follows:

For LD:

30 --- Top speaker

29.6-29.9 --- Late elims

29.3-29.5--- Mid elims

29-29.3 --- Debating to clear

28.5-28.9--- Even

28.0-28.5 --- Below even

Below 28 --- Other

Below 27 --- Disrespectful/Horrible evidence ethics

For CX:

29.5+ — Top Speaker

29.3-29.4 — Top 5-10

29.1-29.2 — Top 20

28.9-29 — Top 25% maybe clearing on speaks

28.7-28.8 — Top 50% wouldn't clear on speaks

28.3-28.6 — Top 75%

28-28.2 — Top 90%

-i want clash and actual weighing in your impacts. Please properly extend your arguments, and provide me a roadmap or what you want to say for the sake of organization

-properly explain all arguments please, especially progressive ones. Provide me roadmaps and extend everything in your argument. I’m ok with spreading. Put me on the email chain: @niechan789@gmail.com. I will vote for more developed and defended arguments.

email: julian@whiteley.com

add me to email chain/speechdrop

cx/pf/ld

follow rules of event, e.g. no cp or plan in pf

no spreading

1 - trad, larp

2 - k

3- kvk, phil

4 - theory/friv/trix

I will always evaluate 1 over 2, your weighing doesn't replace my intervention.