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 (ignore that but not really - ill tell yall in round)

Hiii believe it or not this is the short version of my paradigm. I made one with like an insane word count (~8800+) because I thought it would be funny. Im gonna leave a link to a google doc with the long version of my paradigm if you wanna know any specifics about anything. Ill bold the most important parts of each section on both paradigms, and thats all you need to read. If you want more info on any section, then you can read into it for extra info. The long paradigm was kinda a bit I did because my friends told me I couldn't but the info there is still accurate so if you wanna read it go ahead loll.

>If you're seeing this I forgot to put the link lol<

<------------------------------------- General stuff ------------------------------------->

• I have done every TFA qualifying event at least once (save for a few of the IE’s and world schools), so I will 9/10 be pretty comfortable with whatever event you're in that I happen to be judging. Still, i’m probably a better debate judge than speech.

• The only thing I HATE about debate is how rude people get sometimes. I will always stand by the fact that it is almost impossible for me to side with/rank people who are disrespectful or rude. BE NICE. I hate clique-y and exclusionary behavior, and I think acting pretentious is cringe. If I think you were being rude I am not above giving you last/voting against you REGARDLESS of how well you were doing. Ive given someone last before for being rude and ill do it again. Do not yell, do not belittle, don't scoff, or anything else that is generally disrespectful. It doesn't make me agree with you more. You can be aggressive without being rude.

• If you bring spectators into the round, YOU are responsible for them. I suggest that you and your spectators read the “spectators” part on my long paradigm if you plan to bring them in. Heres a run down: Your opp has the right to ask spectators to leave and I ask you respect them if they do, spectators sit behind competitors and are totally silent throughout the round, spectators can only leave during a natural break in debate and cannot return if they chose to leave, and if you bring in people who are disruptive/disrespectful I have the right to bump down your speaks or your rank.

• Pls dont cheat guys. If you're texting during the round im going to assume it's ABOUT the round. You will get all of one reminder to not use your phone for non-round related purposes unless you have a genuine excuse. If you give me a source that makes some shaky claim, ill look it up. I bump down speaks, ranks, or report to tab when I come across cheating. Trust me, as someone who has been to a LOT of tournaments ive come across a lot of cheating and I am very petty about it.

• I will disclose if you ask me to but only AFTER my ballot is submitted. Ask me any questions you want but I will not change my ballot so pls dont argue with me. If im on a panel ill disclose if the other judges are willing to.

• If at any point I stop evaluating you because either a) I cant understand you or b) you're doing something wrong, I will try to make it AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE! If I dont understand what you're saying I will say “clear”. If you do something stupid like running disclosure in PF im gonna loudly drop my pen and blankly stare at you until you stop.

• I keep time on my end in every event, but I do expect you to time yourselves and keep eachother accountable. Ill call out overtime if I notice it. I encourage you to do the same.

• Pls let me sit next to a charger then I really dont care where yall sit/talk. Move desks if you need to but pls put them back after you're done.

• I call everyone I interact with queen, girl, girly, and other terms like that regardless of gender. Please let me know if this language makes you uncomfortable because its pretty standard for me to use it.

• I am a junior and thus can only judge novices, so i'm not going to down you for not following the perfect varsity standard. Ill give you tips appropriate to your level. If you dont know something, ask me about it.

<-------------------------------------Debate (Trad) ------------------------------------->

General debate stuff:

• Please treat me like I dont have good background on your topic and debate accordingly. I can understand things pretty quickly so you dont need to baby me but fill me in on important context in case I'm not familiar with the topic.

• Please understand your arguments. I dont buy “I have a card” as valid proof for a claim if you dont understand how the card proves the claim is true, You can find a card to say anything (as a policy kid, I know this VERY well) , so please understand WHY in conjunction with how your card proves your claim.

• Please stay consistent to what you're saying through the round ESPECIALLY if you have a partner. I cant evaluate multiple keys, and I'll typically go with the side that is more clear with their narrative,

• CX is listened to but doesnt count unless brought up in your speeches

• Pls dont yell at people in CX thats not nice.

• Idc if you stand or sit so just do whatever.

• Dont ask me to take prep but pls let me know when you start it, when you end it, and how much youve taken in total.

• Pls signpost and roadmap clearly (roadmapping is letting me know the order of arguments youre going to address PRIOR to your speech and signposting is clearly showing me what youre responding to/ making it easy for me to tell when youve gone from different contentions while you're speaking).

• Include a Chappell Roan reference in your speech for +0.1 speaks. +0.2 if it was obscure. I love her so ill probably get any reference you make.

How I evaluate the round, in order of importance.

1. Weighing: If you don't know what weighing is: Explain what my ballot should look like and why. 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. This is all about comparing impacts and what the neg world looks like compared to the aff, and why I prefer yours.

1. 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 extending it if you think its necessary for me to understand what it is you're saying.

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

1. Respectfulness: This only weighs into my ballot if it needs to weigh into my ballot. I severely dislike disrespect in the debate space. Debate is fun if you let it be fun. I've already gone into this earlier though. Just generally be nice to your opponent. In extreme cases, even if you” win” the round, if you're not respectful you're getting a loss. Be nice.

Speaks:

You start out at a 28, and go up or down depending speaking ability, how good your arguments are, how well you develop said arguments, your understanding of how debate works, how respectful you are, body language, speaking styles etc. I tend to be pretty generous with speaks so heres the ranking

30: You're a strong speaker, have good arguments, and overall have a likeable "debate personality"

29: You're a pretty good all around debater, not as good as a 30, but definitely still good

28: Average level for being a novice

27: Needs some improvement in some areas but not terrible

26: You kinda had no idea what you were doing/ were disrespectful/ need a lot of improvement

25: Girl if I give you a 25 you did something really wrong. Ill give you a 25 if I think you were being discriminatory or extremely disrespect. Whatever you did dont do it again pretty please.

<-------------------------------------Extemp------------------------------------->

• Give me your topic slip whenever you enter the room. If im in a panel read the topic out and give it to one of us. If you dont then ill have to go talk to tab to make sure your topic actually existed and thats a whole thing that neither of us wanna deal with.

• Try to state the topic verbatim but im not gonna crucify you if you dont. Especially if your topic is like 2 sentences long.

• Try to answer the ENTIRE question in your responses. Also all of your reasons should independently answer the question.

• If your topic isnt something super-duper obvious please give me some background. Im gonna be so for real, im a little uninformed with more obscure news stuff lol.

• 3 reasons, and please make sure to clearly illustrate where you are in your speech via signposting and using the speakers triangle

• I like silly AGD's and I dont care if theyre canned. Dont feel pressured though, if you cant think of one then background works just fine.

• Dont let fluency breaks throw you off. Im not going to sit here and tally them or anything. If you get tripped up, restart your sentence. If you forget what you're saying, pause for a second. Im not gonna crucify you for it.

• 3-6 sources, but I heavily prefer 6. AT least 1 per reason, but 2 per reason is better.

• I like the structure of explaining your point and then explaining how it connects back to your prompt and/or the impact of it.

• I'm pretty left leaning, but I will buy anything as long as the linkchain is reasonable and it's not discriminatory/fundamentally flawed. Basically, you dont have to try to gamble to make your speech support my political views. Just be respectful and avoid extremely sensitive topics when you can.

• As for time signals, I will do my best but sometimes I get too lost in the speech. If you bring in spectators who can give signals for me that would be sick.If not I got it, but id prefer you just use the standard 3 down first at grace.

• If you want to gear a specific part of your speech towards me more, I really like Chappell Roan and would think it was hilarious if you brought her up. I dont care if the reference is obscure.

<-------------------------------------Informative IE’s------------------------------------->

I think how you chose to inform and engage me is crucial. Especially with the prep you have. Make it creative!!

• 30 precent how interesting your topic is, and 70 precent how well you delivered it/established your arguments.

• I love love love creative topics/ creative spins on common topics n stuff. Commentaries on social issues are pretty sick, but I like whenever speeches commentate on more niche social issues that don't get covered a lot. Type of stuff you could watch a video essay on.

• Make sure its well-structured and generally engaging and informative. I like whenever you incorporate creative elements into your structure,

• While I can give time signals, if someone else in the room could that would be sick.

• This is the only type of event that, though I have spectated it before, I have never done. I will be the least familiar with the structure here.

<-------------------------------------Performance based IE’s------------------------------------->

• If you have a book that youre allowed to read off of, ill always rank someone who didnt read off of it often and maybe stumbled a bit over someone who read from it. Dont feel discouraged if you think you might forget parts of your piece! I wont dock you if you flip through real quick to find your spot and then continue or if you stumble a bit. Personally ive found my BEST success in these events when I go totally off book

• I like to see differentiation between different characters. Give everyone their own personality and character! Its your job to bring the piece to life! I dont even care about logistical consistency. Want your character's parents, who were born and live in Germany, to have southern and british accents? If it doesnt mess with the story, sure. Just bring it to life!

• Please dont be afraid to get expressive. You can jump around the room, be loud, whatever. Just try to have some flow and reason. But the speaking space/ anything you might have with you is yours to use in your interpretation of your piece

• I dont like shock humor. Especially in like HI kind of stuff, if you have some weird jokes in there, maybe skip over them.

• While I can give time signals, if someone else in the room could do that for me that would be sick.

<-------------------------------------Event not listed/tech-y debate------------------------------------->

Check my longer paradigm for tech-ier debate info, congress, and to see more info on any event. If you still dont find your event listed, check the event not listed part of THAT paradigm.

Overall just have fun with it. It's not that serious at the end of the day.

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

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

have fun and learn :)

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

3rd 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 in PF.

Add me to the email chain:

judijoyjeter@gmail.com

sevenlakespf@googlegroups.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.

• Tech > truth

• I look to weighing first to know what argument to prioritize. However, you must first win your link to get access to your weighing. Meta-weighing is extremely helpful in getting the ballot.

• Weighing should be comparative and have warrants. If your weighing has no warrant I will not evaluate it as an argument. New weighing in 1st ff won’t be evaluated. Ideally weighing starts in rebuttal.

• Defense is not sticky

• Second rebuttal must frontline

• Please signpost!!

• Speed is okay, but clarity is super important!

• 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.

• If you want to run a K, do so at your own risk. You are more likely to get a ballot that you agree with i If you are going to run a K, go slow. I’m familiar with the more common Ks like cap or security Ks but if you have something more unique then be sure to really explain your warrants.

• Saying the words try or die is not a complete argument. You must implicate what try or die means for the neg's argument.

• Be respectful during the debate and have fun!!

SLHS '25

4th-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, 2x state qual in pf, 1x gold toc qualled, broke at nationals in policy!

I mainly do pf now

Please ask me questions before the round!

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

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!
  
  

• I heavily prefer ev>presentation- 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 (realistically they’re on the higher end).
  
  

• 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 if the tournament permits it.
  
  

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

TLDR: 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.
  
  

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
  
  

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!
  
  

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

Hallo, I'm Khoa. If you win the debate, I will vote for you :D

Email: khoanguyenle2007 dot com

Here are prefs (1 = 50/50 decision unless you're obviously winning, 5 = hell yeah):

Substance: 5

Theory: 3

K (cap, security, set col): 3

K (everything not listed above): 1

Tricks: 1

Paraphrasing is lame

Evidence Challenges are lame

Speed is aight

Flex Prep is aight

Weighing is cool

Collapsing is cool

Warranting is necessary

Extensions are necessary

Grand cross is not necessary

Nothing new after first summary

It's only on my ballot if it's in the summary AND final focus

Lastly, studies have shown that when people are given food/drinks, they're more likely to be happy and might give out higher speaks during debate rounds :)

# Background
Hello, 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.
>> Please time yourselves. I will not be timing. If you do not choose to time yourself, I will not be held responsible.

# General Paradigms
>> 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 bombard 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 share the same opinions as Vishal Surya and Arnav Mehta.

I am open to both policy-centered and critical arguments. Above all, be kind and respectful.

Hey y'all!

I'm John Lutterman, an assistant coach for Seven Lakes HS, where I used to debate, staff for Public Forum Boot Camp, and a student at UT Austin.

Please add me to the email chain!

johntlutterman26@gmail.com

also add

sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

If you have any questions on this paradigm, I'll be happy to answer!

TL;DR

tech over truth, please weigh with warrants

I'm good with speed, just be coherent

send docs before speeches, and send carded evidence

For PF, general/niche things

Tech>>>truth

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

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

Weighing should have warrants when introduced

2nd rebuttal has to frontline

Signposting is IN for 2025! Please do it!

mostly unrelated, but if I'm in a position where I must presume (both teams don't have any offense or weighing), then I default to the team that spoke better, since this is the other portable skill debate has aside from research. "Speaking better" is having more fluidity, coherency, and giving more intuitive arguments. (Please lord don’t let it come to this ;-;)

On evidence and evidence sharing:

• Send cut cards when introducing evidence with what you read highlighted.
  
  

• Please send docs and evidence in either word or pdf format
  
  

• For bad evidence, I won’t down a team for it unless it’s like every card. Usually I’ll just drop it if the argument is made.
  
  

• If you are going mark a card mid-speech, please make sure to mark it on your doc, then resend the doc after you finish.

For speed

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. Coherency>>>

For Theory

I am open to theory, however, theory can get convoluted rather quickly.

• I will not outright reject frivolous theory, however, the more ridiculous it is, the lower my burden for response is. However, please don't use friv theory to showboat against other teams - especially those who may not have a full grasp of theory yet. Examples of friv include but aren't limited to: shoes, formal clothing, hairnets (my bad), Sitting down (@Tharoon), technology bad, evidence bad, and author quals. Basically anything that doesn't really have an in-round abuse that affects the substance of the debate.
  
  

• 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.
  
  

• 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 the best 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.

• I'm a big fan of using emails on wikis as a defense tactic against theory

Stuff you should know:

• I’d prefer for interpretations to be written down
  
  

• RVI's are independent reasons why the theory introducing team should lose for introducing theory. Counter interps are NOT RVI's, but instead another shell to be weighed against the original shell

For Kritical 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. I just want to be able to give you proper feedback.

I only ask that you pay special attention to explaining your arguments well. It'll make it easier for me to understand (and for you to win ;D)

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. Ask Tyler Crivella for clarification. Please.

(Those who know: *skull emoji*)

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

Peace out,

John Lutterman

email: rayaanmeghani13@gmail.com - add it to the email chain if yall are setting one up

PF/LD

novices just know I'm fine with most arguments but I'm gonna put more emphasis on presentation compared to other stuff and just give me reasons to prefer your argument over ur opponents - also dw about having to adapt to me I'm cool w judging whatever kind of round yall want

Tech >>> truth except for exclusionary stuff

any homophobic racist sexist or other similar rhetoric is gonna get an automatic L25

Abusing novices and being exclusionary in general also gets an auto L25

I'll pay attention to cross but only consider arguments if they're brought up in the next speech

Speed: I'm fine up until ~250 wpm, anything above that I'm gonna have a harder time flowing

Obviously extend, I have a somewhat higher threshold for extensions but if something is conceded it doesn't need too much of a warrant

First I look to framing, then the link debate, and then weighing. If you have access to your link it's a probable impact

Familiarity with different things in debate from a scale of 1-5 (1 being the best, 5 being the worst)

Policy/Larp - 1

Topical Ks - 3 (mostly stuff like Cap or Security - I don't really understand things outside of those two realms)

Nontopical Ks - 3.5

Phil - 4 (I don't understand much besides the basic stuff behind Kant)

T/Theory - 2.5

Tricks - 5 (probably just don't run tricks they're kinda uncool)

Things I like

1. Signposting: Makes it easier for me to flow
2. Weighing: Earlier the better, meta-weighing is pretty cool but regular weighing is also cool. Don't make too much of a big deal out of probability weighing and don't use timeframe or probability as a way to make new responses that should've been in rebuttal
3. Evidence comparison/indicts: These can usually help you win a close round
4. Line by Line analysis: it makes going thru the flow way easier
5. Impact turns are funny asf but make sure u know what ur doing

Speaks-wise I'll be pretty lenient just don't like curse or do something insanely stupid in round and you'll be fine

I debated for four years on the national circuit for Seven Lakes, and am a FYO

tldr stuff is bolded

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

If you have any questions please ask.

For ivy street plz keep arguments less silly ty!

add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

General:

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

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

I prob am zoned out during cross so just if something is conceded in cross make sure to like emphasize it CX IS BINDING.

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. 3x TFA qualifier, 2x GTOC 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 can be binding if there is a violation

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

progressive Args

Love em, I ran Latine for Seven Lakes CM and understand a good amout of K literature, however do not assume i know it all, you should explain your position well anyway

Philosophy

Ive learned a good amount of philosophy, and would enjoy a good Phil round. As always explain well.

Phil authors i understand: Kant, Hagel, baulliard, nitzhe, varoufakis, and frier.

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'm fine withK's, just don't expect me to understand dense K or phil lit. Trix is a strike.

Spreading is fine with me, I will tell you, "clear", if I can't hear you properly, and at some point you will see me stop flowing. Please be on your own speech and prep times. Stealing prep or miscut/clipped evidence will be reflected in your speaker points.

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 learned everything i know from bryce Piotrowski

slhs junior

main event: pf

You can run whatever just explain it well--links, warrants, impacts and weigh (and have fun)

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

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

I've been doing PF for three years

Tech>truth

Analytics are kewl if you have warrants.

I'm comfortable judging theory but Ks should be run at your own risk.

Good comparative weighing will get you my ballot, sign the ballot for me

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

Expected behavior

Don't be disrespectful to your opponents.

Hold each other responsible for speech time/ prep time.

speaking

I'm okay with speed up to a certain extent but spread at your own risk, if you want to check how fast you can go, read a couple cards in your block file and I'll lyk if I can comprehend what you're saying.

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= Really good round strat

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

FOR NOVICE NIGHT:

debate however you want, just be clear and go slow and try your best! gl!

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

Please add vishalsurya0704@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 David Lu, Arnav Mehta, Jason Zhao, Daniel Guo, Bryce Piotrowski, Bryce Sheffield, Tuyen Le, and Nine Abad. I share many of their opinions.

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
i primarily debate PF
i coach at sljh and bdjh :)


Tech > truth - tbh this statement doesn't mean much, in the wise words of one bryce piotrowski, "There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". The sooner that you realize that they are two sides of the same coin, the faster you’ll get better at debate." but if holds value to you do what you will with it.
You need to weigh. - I feel like some debaters (tbh including me) get caught too much up into the round and forget to make valid weighing claims. Do not spit out buzzwords, comparatively weigh your args v. theirs.
Clash needs to be in the debate - show me how your arguments interact with your opponents.
Implicate - This is the most important thing. Do not just read evidence or make statements, I need to know what you mean and more importantly why I should care. I genuinely will not know how to evaluate the debate unless you extend all your arguments and implicate what you want me to vote on. In short 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 buzzwords and cards for which you can't explain the warrant. Also I love evidence indicts - don't be afraid to call out bad ev in the other team - just do it right.

Some small things:

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

speaks
i'm not horrible with speaks. 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.

speech:

Extemp and Impromptu are based on your speaking ability. A good flow and cadence will work well for you. Also do not fudge evidence.
If you make me laugh I will up you.

Hi! I'm Kush, I'm an LD debater. kushvijapure13@gmail.com
I primarily read Ks and theory debate. But I have done everything

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

People that coached/influenced me heavily:

For K debate: Sai Karavadi, Aidan Etkin, E. Cook

Theory/Phil - Jackson White, Agastya Sridharan, Bodhi Rosen

Policy deabte - Brett Cryan, Fahim Jahingir

Debate:

Pref shortcut

Not a measure of how much I am likely to buy these arguments (I'll buy anything if explained properly) but a measure of how well I can evaluate them

1- K v K + K v Policy (on either side)

1/2 - Policy v Policy, K v Phil (also on either side

1/2 - Theory debates (I love these)

3 - Trix, Skep, Truth Testing Strats, Generic phil like Kant, Hobbes, Butler,

4- Phil v Phil debates thats not Kant v Hobbes, or Util v Something else

5 - Dense Phil thats not explained properly

General

Fiat K is one of the best arguments in debate

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).

General

defaults:

competing interps

yes rvis

dtd

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

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

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

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

Fiat K------------------X------------------------------Plan Based Links

Exclusive Interps------X-----------------------------Middle Ground Interps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker Points:

I try to give good points, I'll be more generous if you don't take prep. If you go for an RVI well you'll get a 30.

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%

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.