Tabroom.com

Outreach Debate Winter Camp Tournament 2023

2023 — Online, MA/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sachin Aggarwal Hire

Henry Anastasi-Scott Hire

Last changed on Tue February 27, 2024 at 3:39 PM EDT

I have learned the most in debate from asking judges dozens of questions about things I didn't understand in their paradigm. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

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

Henry Anastasi (He/him/his)

Currently, a Senior at J. R. Masterman HS and have debated since freshman year under Masterman AW, AE, and most notably two different Masterman ACs

TLDR-I'm Tech I can judge you do what you want, I appreciate speech docs with cards greatly (not Google docs)

Immediate warning-any and all teams I will not vote for you if you´re hateful in any way. Any rhetoric that is Sexist, Racist, Homophobic, Transphobic, ect will lose you my ballot.

Debate is fun keep it fun. If you are rude to a team because you think you're better than them I will tank ur speaks even if I vote you up. You are not god, you are a teenager in a suit, I've seen too much of this recently.

General

-Go as fast as u want, I would like a speech doc over 1000 words, I think you will generally benefit from slower back half speeches

-tech>truth but that doesn't mean saying 'the sky is red' has as much legitimacy as 'the sky is blue'

-Defense isn't sticky it is 2023 (I lowkey don't even know what defense is sticky means)

-signposting good

-my partner and I do a lot of 'you didn't extend this properly' claims when we are losing rounds but I don't actually think it's that valuable. If your link into extinction isn't contested I don't need all the warranting behind it. TLDR, good extensions are valuable but I am not that stingy.

- Most rounds are won on the offensive layer, if you are torn on whether you should extend bad defense or read more weighing, read weighing.

-In that same realm, I will almost always vote for the argument that outweighs if some semblance of a link is won unless claims are read that I should prefer probability or prefer a less mitigated link

-Probability is a function of winning your case, and goes in tandem with defense

-Probability weighing is not an excuse to read new defense. It's so funny how far people can stretch probability analysis in some rounds. I think other weighing is preferable anyway because weighing should presume both arguments are won and probability is a facet of how won your link is.

-Early weighing is awesome and meta weighing is awesome. I think everyone is getting the point

-I think it's more interesting when things don't just impact out to extinction. I don't mind you doing that cuz sometimes it is just the best strategy (I read extinction constantly) , but it is so much more interesting to be able to do impact-weighing

Theory

-I like theory, Open-source disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and round reports are good. I think content warnings are important for safety. I won't hack for any of this issues, your fighting an uphill battle responding to them but obviously I'll vote on the flow

-Drop the debater and other paradigm issues aren't a given so you need to make those arguments, you absolutely can lose a round where you are ahead on the theory level but don't extend dtd

-The current state of RVIs is bad. 50% of people think RVI's are any argument that you can win the round off of when responding to theory and the other 50% actually know what they are ????. Say no offense garnered if that's what you mean, say no RVIs if that's what you mean.

-If your K is serious take yourself seriously, if it's not then don't pretend like it is. I don't care what a random dude from 100 years ago thinks I care what argument you extrapolate from them.

-i'm good w non-topical, set col, IR, securitization, and anything that's considered common in pf.

-real alt pls not "reject the aff" THATS LITERALLY WHAT THE NEG ALREADY IS

Speaks

-Pitch me a real reason u deserve 30 speaks and I'll give you 30. It can be personal, if there's someone you want to outspeak you gotta spill the drama

-1+ speaks if you don't have a coach, 25 speaks if you lie about it

-Speaks will generally be good dw abt it

Fun Stuff

-An authentic Philly-related line in a debate round will get you high speaks. This doesn't mean you have to be from Philly but it also doesn't mean Google Philadelphia and use the first thing you see.

-If both teams agree to read cases from a dif topic I will give everyone 30s regardless

Misc

-I'll presume for the squo unless other claims are made

Hamza Banatwala Outreach Debate

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 4:50 PM CDT

Hi, my name is Hamza. I am a current 2nd year debater for Blake HS in MN Minneapolis -- Add hamzabanatwala@gmail.com to the chain and send cut cards with speech docs before your speech.

Tech > Truth

-- Run the argument you want within reason so nothing discriminatory or racist

-- Extend uq link and impact at the minimum when extending an argument.

-- Don't go for everything in the back half, make strategic decisions for which arg you are winning the most and tell me why its the most important in the round. In other words, weigh your arguments and do it thoughtfully. Pre reqs that are warranted and extended properly are the best form of weighing and can sway my ballot.

-- Plz preflow! In other words just be prepared when the round is supposed to start.

-- Ev ethics matter... Read from cut cards and don't paraphrase. If you truly HAVE to paraphrase then don't go fast and send rhetoric otherwise speaks will prob be meh.

-- Defense is not sticky, extend whatever you want on my ballot.

-- Time yourself

-- Be nice, have good crosses, don't yell. debate is a game it's supposed to be fun

-- Speed is fine don't give up clarity tho

Cross

-- If you want ev, call for it after cross not during

-- alternate questions, allow for followups within reason

-- Cross isn't binding

-- Don't be mean but i don't care if you are a little aggressive, just be aware.

Kritiks

You can run K's but it might be at your own expense b/c I don't have much experience with them.
Don't run high theory K's, but security and cap are prob a better bet if you want to run them.

Theory

-- default to interps and competing interps > reasonability unless convinced otherwise

-- Disclosure is good paraphrasing is bad, trigger warnings are bad

-- IVI's are weird, if the opp did something rlly bad then just read a shell

-- No RVI's

Speaks:

-- assigned based off strategic decisions

-- won't go below 26 unless you are racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

Have fun! I will disclose if the tournament lets me

-- Ask questions after round just be respectful of everyone.

Soumil Bhandari Outreach Debate None

Claire Cao Outreach Debate

Kaden Carr Outreach Debate

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 5:34 PM CDT

Rock Hill CG (2022-2024) 1A/2N

kadenjcarr05@gmail.com

Tech over truth -- I will vote for any argument if you tell me a comparatively better reason to vote for it. I don't have a preference against any argument, do what you do best, but below I will note some of my biases and predispositions.

Top-level note, whatever your argument is, it makes judging easier when I can explain in your words why the other team lost after the debate. This means your arguments should have sufficient warrants for me to make a decision. I have a decently low bar for what I consider a "warrant" until your opponent raises the bar with their response.

Plan Affs

I think the role of the Aff is to prove the plan is a good idea compared to all other competitive options. Prove that is true under a framework that you have won is best and I will vote Aff. I do not have a preference for the type of Aff you're reading (I.E soft left, big stick.. etc) just win an impact to an advantage and explain in terms of impact calculus why that impact is the highest risk in the debate.

Planless Affs

I have read a few planless affs, I am most familiar with Settler Colonialism and Anti-Capitalist literature, but you should read whatever you read. I do not have a predisposition against planless Affs, you just need to win a framing argument for why I should vote Aff or prove that the Aff solves an impact that outweighs negative arguments

Against Topicality, I think I lean slightly negative in most debates but I am very willing to vote affirmative. The two most convincing strategies I have seen against topicality are a counter-interpretation with an educational net benefit or a straight impact turn to the practice of topicality. I am fine voting for either of these positions if you prove your model of debate is preferable.

In K v K debates I lean heavily affirmative. Usually going for the permutation and contextually answering neg links is more than sufficient and it is very difficult for K teams on the neg to generate competition. That said, I am happy to vote on technical concessions both ways.

Topicality

Win that the model of debate your interpretation proposes is good and better than the counter-interpretation and I will vote on topicality. I was a 2N who almost always took a Kritik while my partner took Topicality, so I am less versed than some others. Because of that, I think it would probably benefit the 2NR to explain to me what your model of debate looks like, why your interp is net better, and cover other technical concessions like the C/Is vs Reasonability debate (I think reasonability doesn't exist until you explain what you think it means to me). I don't have any particular opinions about standards, I'll vote for whatever you prove outweighs.

Kritiks

They're great. Do them well and I like to vote for them. I am most familiar with Cap K debates because that's what I went for a lot, other than that lit base assume I am familar with your argument in the context of debate but I have likely not read source material for anything. I am willing to vote either way on K framework, I treat it like a theory debate with reasons to prefer either interpretation. It will take a high amount of time on the page to make me forget the Aff entirely, but if you're winning arguments that say I should, I will. Links are strategically better when specific to the Aff, but are not required to be as long as they explain why something about the 1AC is bad. The alternative should resolve your link offense unless you're going fully for framework.

Counterplans

Counterplan debates are cool, but I will preface they are the argument I have gone for the least. That said, I have zero preference against them. Explain why yours is mutually exclusive/net-beneficial and I will vote for it over the Aff. I have less experience with incredibly complex process counterplan competition debates, I have heard the arguments but have not internalized them well enough to have a reliable understanding, when I say this I am referring to things like Textual/Functional Intrinsicness which do not often get debated in highschool.

Disadvantages

Perfectly fine. I've gone for them, people have gone for them against me. Win your scenario (Uniqueness, Links, Impact) and I will feel solid voting for this argument. I think a DA that turns the case is far more strategic than one which tries to purely outweigh the Aff, but either are viable. Try to contextualize your link arguments in the block and do some implicit weighing in terms of how your scenario happens faster, at a broader scale, etc. I believe 0% risk can exist if the DA is structurally wrong about something (For example if the DA is about Russian Revisionism but the Aff heavily wins Russia is not revisionist) but in almost all cases the DA has some level of risk. That said, I don't like debates that bounce back and forth with unjustified lines like "1% risk is enough", when they haven't justified why in comparison to their opponent who just said the same.

Theory

It's fine. I won't change my conscious decision-making calculus for any theory argument, even if I am likely to take Conditionality as more serious than "Debaters must not wear shoes". Have an interpretation, have reasons to prefer it, and contextualize why your reasons outweigh the ones they are going for.

My defaults are,

Drop the Argument over Drop the Debater
Competing Interps over Reasonability
No RVIs

These can be changed in the debate, but you'll need some warrant as to why I should.

Vishwa Charabuddi Outreach Debate

Calvin Chawda Outreach Debate None

Andy Cheng Outreach Debate

Kevin Cheng Hire

Josh Cohen Hire

Last changed on Mon May 27, 2024 at 11:12 AM EDT

j.e.cohen@columbia.edu

1---TLDR

Tech>truth. No hard-line preferences—debate however you want. Weigh. Make a chain and send speech docs in PDFs or Word. Will evaluate anything—K, theory, framing, trix, phil. Signpost, please.

2---GENERAL

Speed: Read whatever speed you want. You should be sending a doc anyway. I will not flow off a doc, though. I know that is confusing.

Clarity: Signpost and tell me where to start every speech after rebuttal. If there are more than 2 sheets, tell the order to stack my paper in. Will be so happy if you pause for a second between sheets.

Weighing: Weighing is prolly the most important part of my ballot and I will always look there first. Weigh a lot and weigh well and you will prolly win. With that said I think that a lot of weighing that is done in PF is honestly really really bad—please make it comparative. Also, please answer your opponents' weighing, compare your weighing mechs, etc.

Extensions: I am (sadly for you) a stickler for extensions and will be highly receptive to "no extension" claims. So, read blippy extensions at your own risk. This also applies to defense; answering a frontline is not the same as a defensive extension. Please be clear which one you are doing.

Engagement: Extensions through ink are possibly a top 3 most annoying thing in debate. Please don't just keep asserting the same frontline/backline over and over again. Engage, critically think, compare, etc. and it will make my and your lives both a lot easier. I would like to avoid intervening on the link level, and if I am forced to you may be upset.

Evidence: Lowkey actually do not care that much about evidence quality. Warrants>>>>. I will not read evidence unless I am told to AND am told how to read the evidence with specific thresholds. Cut your cards. Power tagging is annoying---don't do it

3---THEORY

General: I will not tell you what my theory preferences are because it will not impact my decision, and I really hate judges that project their opinions about certain norms on their paradigm.

Friv: I will evaluate friv. Will try to be as non-interventionist as possible, but if you are reading something dumb, dumb responses are just logically more convincing.

One Exception: If you run disclo but don't open source I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Defaults: Don’t know why I need to put this into my paradigm, but letting you know I will default CIs and no RVIs (I guess??). This should be debated, though, not something that I decide pre-round---not sure why it is a norm that I need to tell you.

4---K DEBATE

General: Pretty comfortable evaluating most standard PF ks (cap, sec, fem IR, set col, etc.) but feel free to do whatever.

T-FW: Read it, I guess. Fairness is (maybe) an impact.

K v K: Need to see more of this in PF. Would love to evaluate.

Some Pet Peeves: Please explain what my ballot does; it will make both of our lives easier. If u read an alt that is "reject the neg/aff" I will be sad. Do not paraphrase Ks; if you do I will cap speaks at 27.

5---SPEAKS

Speaks will generally be very high and will only be determined by in round strategy and never based on speaking style

+1 speaks if you are the only varsity entry from your school at a bid tournament (tell me)

+1 speaks if you don't have a coach (tell me)

-2 speaks if you are a big school and add an xyzdocs@gmail.com to the chain

6---MISC

a---I’ll presume for the team that spoke first, but obviously warrants that are read in round can change that.

b---I will stop flowing when time stops. That does not mean you get to finish your sentence. I will not budge on this.

c---If both teams agree to read a case from a previous topic you can totally do that

Bashir Eltyeb Outreach Debate

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 4:42 AM CDT

Bashir(He/Him/His). debate for Iowa City West (2022-2025)

I do PF mainly on the natcirc now. I semi’d the TOC my Junior year and 2x state champ

Mainly a PFer, scroll down for other events

add bashireltyeb01@gmail.com to the email chain

read bolded parts if you're in a rush

quick prefs:

Policy/LARP/normal substance - 1

Theory - 1

K - 2 (ask me before the round about the K you're reading, some are 1s and some are 5s)

phil - 4

Tricks - 4

The substance:

Frameworks are fine, but please warrant them. Don't just say "the framework is structural violence", say “the framework is structural violence because xyz”.

I generally enjoy unique arguments, squirrely cases are cool and really show creativity. At the same time, I think it's super impressive to be able to read a stock contention and frontline it well enough to win. Literally read whatever you want.

Defense isn't sticky

if you weigh i'll look to that first. If you don't, i'll just choose whatever argument i like better. Please weigh. Link Weighing > Impact weighing.

Please weigh in rebuttal/summary and just extend your already existent weighing. I’ll evaluate new weighing in first final but I will not be happy.

I have a soft spot for impact turns. Spark, Climate change good, (existential threat x) good, are all fine. i can't believe i have to say this but please don't try to impact turn inequality impacts

rebuttals don’t have to extend, 2nd rebuttal MUST frontline.

Disads are fine.If you’re basically just reading another contention in rebuttal, then I’ll flow it and evaluate it, I guess. If your disad is responsive to smth your opponent read (e.g discourse of SV perpetuates it) then I will be very happy. Responsive disads are fire.

Overviews are good. Weighing overviews are great.I enjoy debates with weighing overviews a lot and i think it is incredibly underutilized. I don’t know how much I agree with the idea of reading an overview and trying to win that the overview is terminal defense on everything your opponents read, but I’ll flow it if that’s you.

Progressive arguments:

just because I can evaluate prog doesn't mean you should run it. If substance is your thing then run substance. My role as a judge is to adapt to you. I want you to have fun, do whatever makes you happy.

Theory:

I'm pretty comfortable judging a theory round. I default Text > Spirit, No RVIs, CIs > reasonability, Yes OCIs, DTA for evidence violations i.e paraphrasing, DTD for out of round violations i.e disclosure. I would only default to these if no paradigm issues are read; please read paradigm issues.

paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good. I will vote on paraphrasing good/disclosure bad if won.

Nothing is frivolous. I’ve read some really "dumb" theory shells and I had an absolute blast doing it. Do whatever you want in round; if you win it, i’ll vote on it. (As long as it isn’t ___ist)

Kritiks:

I'm good for most of these, but high theory Ks (Camus, Baudrillard, etc.) are probably not a good idea, identity Ks/Cap/Sec/Fem are usually fine. I read afropess quite a bit so I am familiar with a lot of the key aspects of the literature. I have also encountered many SetCol/Cap Ks so I should be good for those unless your K is super unique, in which case please explain it well. I'm good for most performance Ks, just make sure to extend your performance. Stolen from Zion Dixon: "Debate is antiblack. I don’t just believe it, I know it." I will honestly probably be biased towards antiblackness Ks unless the person reading them is not black. Non-black pess is an Auto L25.I am primarily a K debater and really appreciate the concept of Kritiks, so if you have a K you wanna test out, this is your chance.

Callouts are dumb. I refuse to flow them or vote off of them.

IVIs are fine, just warrant them. If the violation is really bad, run a shell. At the same time, I don't expect you to read a shell with an interp like "Debaters must not misgender their opponents". If it's something personally harmful to you then either run an IVI or ask to stop the round. Stopping the round is not a guaranteed win, If it's something that isn't triggering to you or something that you think you can power through, please continue the round.

I will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise. I am a lot less comfortable voting off a misgendering IVI if you don't have your pronouns up on tabroom.

I will drop you for reading any form of argument that advocates for your opponents/partner/yourself to harm themselves. I will stop the round and vote you down with the lowest possible speaks if you even tangentially sound like you're advocating for someone to harm themselves.

Metatheory > Theory = T > K > Substance

"It's not allowed in PF" isn't a response. "Our coach didn't teach us" isn't a response. "We're not allowed to disclose" isn't a response. "What's the wiki?" isn't a response. If your response to theory/Kritiks is basically “nooo this is PF :(“ you will lose. I'm tired of people pretending like underprivileged debaters have no clue what theory is. There are hundreds of theory rounds online and there are lectures that teach you parts of a theory shell. You don't have to pay thousands of dollars to go to camp to learn what a theory shell is. If you're interested in going to a camp but you can't afford it, google outreach debate. If you have a budget and want to practice a lot of rounds, google PFBC/NSD. I went to both and they taught me a lot. If you're a debater competing in varsity, you should be able to respond to any form of argument including but not limited to theory, kritiks, impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. your response to a shell should either be a “we meet” or reasons why the interp is bad (preferably a counterinterp but anything is fine).I am a debater from a small school and I knew what theory was by the end of novice year. My second year, I was running it. I guarantee you that you're smarter than me. If I could put in 40 minutes to read about it then so can you. I think too many teams try to get away with lying about team policy to get out of theory shells which won't work with me. If your coach tells you explicitly not to do x thing, make sure they give you reasons as to why x thing is a bad norm so you can beat it in round.

contact me for any questions on progressive debate, I'm happy to help.

General things to note:

Your speaks will be fine, I will very rarely give below a 27

I don't care how fast you speak.

I don't care if you're sitting or standing.

I don't care what you're wearing.

I don’t care if you cuss.

Policy

I will vote on anything, a Plan vs CP debate is probably boring but I'm comfortable evaluating it. I'm a good judge for DAs, theory and very basic capitalism kritiks. I can probably evaluate Identity Ks, Performance Ks, and Setcol Ks but reading high theory is really not a good idea

Spreading is fine, with the caveat that you have to 1) Enunciate and be clear 2) Send a speech doc 3) Slow down on analytics and tags

Kritiks are my favorite form of argument, if you have a K you want to test out, this is your time.

I know nothing about the topic, please explain acronyms at least the first time you say them.

Condo is usually good but I'll vote on condo bad if you win it(Same with any other argument)

Please don’t cite my paradigm in round.

If that's not enough for you, most of my views in debate are shaped by:

they’re way smarter than me and have more in depth paradigms.

Ava Fiala Outreach Debate

Calvin Goldsberry Outreach Debate

Last changed on Tue June 18, 2024 at 5:37 AM CDT

Hello, my name is Calvin. I'm a senior at Roosevelt and have been debating in Public Forum since middle school. Add me on the email chain: calvinj.goldsberry@gmail.com AND trhspf@googlegroups.com

When I am judging, you will have my full attention. I will not be on social media or other websites.

Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.

TLDR: I am a tech judge.

Judging Philosophy

I am tabula rasa/tech>truth. I will evaluate anything I can understand.

I don't care about speed as long as you can produce a speech doc that I can follow.

Defense is not sticky.

Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

Good weighing will probably win you the debate.

Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence will result in a TKO and Tabroom contact.

Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.

Kritiks

I love K debates. I think these debates are extremely important for the debate space when they are run well. I'm familiar with a lot of K lit (Afropess, Cap, Imperialism, Setcol, Fem IR), but please explain things in simple terms so I can understand the warrant-level debate.

Theory

Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.

I struggle to evaluate RVIs, they do not make much sense to me. Why should you win for being fair?

Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.

Tricks

These are uneducational and impossible to evaluate, please don't read them.

Speaker Points

I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks.

25 or less: You intentionally did something abusive/offensive. I have probably contacted Tab.

25-26: You did something pretty wrong/You are a novice.

26-27: You made some mistakes.

27-28: Average.

28-29: Pretty good!

29-30: One of the best teams at this tournament.

If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.

Ela Kini Outreach Debate

Jesus Lara Outreach Debate

Last changed on Tue March 12, 2024 at 3:56 PM EDT

Kinkaid LT '24

add me to the email chain: jesus.lara@kinkaid.org. i prefer speech drop but you do you.

ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round. ill disclose after rounds

my fav debates are uq debates and framing debates.

i agree with charlie yang, gabe rusk, cale mccrary, andy stubbs, and eric emerson.

please remember to have fun!

**For Outreach**
if you're in varsity debate then you should expect varsity arguments. i will not evaluate "i dont understand how to respond" in varsity because you could've debated in the novice pool. if you're in the novice pool, i will only be evaluating substantive arguments.

im fine with prog. read my prog section for more info

im fine with speed (my max is somewhere around 250 wpm if that is something you track), but def don't spread. especially with the online format, you should be going 70-80% slower. i'll yell clear twice, after that it's on you if stuff isn't on my flow.

don't read disclosure at a camp tourney. im fine with other shells, see below.

keep cams on if possible lol

**General**
tech > truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact. please don't make me intervene :(

yes, that does mean i'll vote for you if you win the sky is red as long as:
1. it is a complete argument
2. you extend the argument in the backhalf (with warrants)
3. it isn't discriminatory
4. weigh weigh weigh (comparative weighing, not just re-explaining your impact) note about weighing -- i love prereq analysis, short circuits, and link-ins. i will boost your speaks if these weighing mechanisms are implemented well

however, it makes it easier for me to vote for you if your arguments are inherently true.

i start speaks at 28.5. you can go up and down from there depending on your performance in the round.

tell me how to vote in the backhalf. judge direction is key and will be rewarded with high speaks. responses should be implicated and those implications should also be extended. tell me why your defense means i shouldn't vote for their arguments, etc etc. it is to your advantage to go slower in the backhalf. it will make my job that much easier.

**More on evidence**
please send me all cards you read in round. i will be reading them if i need to break the clash. ev ethics does matter and ill down you if your ev is atrocious.

warranted ev > warranted analytics > unwarranted ev > unwarranted analytics

i love rebuttals that are a mix of warranted ev and warranted analytics. if you can pull off a fire all analytic rebuttal auto 30 speaks.

pls don't paraphrase. ill cap ur speaks at 25 (womp womp). direct quoting is fine as long as you have the cards

**progressive**
i can probably eval anything a pfer has read before. for context, i've read anything from substance to theory to weird kritiks and topical performances.

with that being said, trix are for kids. stop trying to act cool.

for some reason ppl tend to extend progressive args in rebuttal. treat it as a normal arg; you don't need extensions in rebuttal.

**kritiks**
i love topical kritiks that are specific to the topic. ex: i prefer a nuanced kritik of space set col in the context of the artemis accords over a general cap debate (although i have ran general cap / dedev plenty of times)

you should be extending all parts of the k in the backhalf (link, impact, alt, and framing if you go for it)

make it clear for me why your opponents link into the kritik, why x problem you outline in your framing comes first, and why you solve it better.

links of omission are pretty stupid. i guess i will evaluate them, but my threshold for responses against these links is low tho.

no alt = no solvency. make it clear what voting for the alt does. im receptive to vague alts theory if you fail to do so. im also receptive to alts bad, so be ready to defend alts (which shouldn't be that hard tbh)

no link = no kritik

framing is very under-appreciated imo. i love unique framing (such as grievability,) and even stuff that's ran a lot like structural violence. i expect you to understand your own warranting. interesting framing that is ran well will be rewarded with high speaks.

im most unfamiliar with non-topical kritiks since ive never hit one / ran one, but i do understand how they work. if you decide to read this type of argument, explain your literature to me, especially in cx and the backhalf. don't expect me to understand your method, esp if it isn't rage or killjoy. discourse in the context of debate is fake. i wont vote off of it because i have no idea what im voting for.

theory probably comes before the k, but i can convinced otherwise (esp with cap debates)

**theory**
will not hack for anything.

ill default CI>reasonabilty, DTD>DTA, text>spirit but can be convinced otherwise

people forget to weigh voters or weigh links into voters, so please do so.

i love interesting shells, but i have a low threshold for dumb ones. read reasonability + rvis and you'll make my job downing them that much easier.

as i said earlier, don't read disclosure at camp.

if your opponents paraphrase, im capping their speaks at 25 so don't read a shell. i'd rather hear a substance debate.

im fine with shells being read on kritiks (stuff like vague alts, T, etc.). i personally think this is one of the most strategic ways to respond to them.

trigger warning bad theory is based. refer to gabe rusk's paradigm for an in-depth analysis.

Wayne Liang Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 7:09 AM PDT

*Time your speeches and prep - I trust that you aren't lying to me.

"When debaters walk in the room, they expect the judge to render a fair decision, not to rob them of years of hard work and dedication by substituting their personal biases for the arguments presented." - Giorgio Rabbani

I am a current junior who has debated Varsity PF for VDA since 2022. I have qualified to TOC every year since I was a sophomore and reached outrounds at TOC, Yale, Georgetown, Cal State Fullerton, UMich, John Lewis, and Digital TOC Speech and Debate 1 & 2.

Add me to the email chain:

waynelgy@gmail.com

Tech over everything.

"Speed is fine but hella annoying." I MIGHT be able to flow speed up to 250wpm (maybe <200 wpm online) but I’m pretty mid at flowing so you should go flay if you want the best chance of winning my ballot. Always Clarity > Speed - if I can't understand you, I will clear you two times and stop flowing entirely if you don't slow down or enunciate more. I will never look or flow off a doc if you are spreading beyond the point of incomprehension. TOC-level LD or Policy spreading is a big no, PF "spreading" is not ideal but fine within reason.

I do not care who you or your coaches are, what school you go to, or how much clout you have.

Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means. Debate is a game and you should maximize your chances of winning. I genuinely have no defaults or preferences so I'll default to either the first-speaking team or the status quo if no offense is won (in the absence of presumption warrants). Run disclosure bad and paraphrasing good if you so choose.

I hate intervention. I won't interfere on anything in the round without explicit judge instruction. The only exceptions are anything that threatens the safety of any debater in the round (i.e.: any -isms) or an egregiously new second FF because the first FF physically can’t respond. I should be able to draw a somewhat clear line between the second summary and final on my flow but creative second FFs are fine and even desirable.

Everything important should be warranted, implicated, and weighed. If you don’t do work to break the clash or explain why I should prefer your arguments, I will decide for you. I don’t care what you run as long as you slow down, warrant, implicate, and weigh it. That being said, I'm still a PFer who debated mostly lay rounds so I'm the most familiar with LARP, framework, theory, topical Ks (cap, security, setcol, etc), and performance (fem rage/wake work) in that order. For anything else (pomo, high theory, phil, tricks, etc) you should probably slow down and treat me like an ultra lay. RUN AT YOUR OWN RISK. I’ll evaluate those arguments exponentially worse the more obscure or elaborate they become (I am dumb).

"Weighing is important but optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded prereqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed". This doesn't mean that weighing is irrelevant — only that winning your links is a prior question for me to grant you offense. If you win both the comparative and your link to the highest layer of offense in the round, you will probably win the debate.

I view speaker points as a separate matter entirely from the ballot. If you send evidence docs for constructive + rebuttal, your baseline will be decently high (>28.5) unless you make some extreme strategic mistakes or the round unsafe. I will increase speaks if you are clear, warrant, do the comparative, make strategic choices, and engage with your opponent's arguments instead of reading scripts. I would be incredibly impressed if most of your rebuttal consists of well-warranted and implicated analytics and evidence indicts that line-by-line your opponent's contentions instead of reading off copy/paste blocks. A great way to lose speaks is spreading off a prewritten speech doc for an hour (esp backhalf). If you do, please at least signpost exceptionally well and go like 60% of your normal speed because I find most speeches that consist of reading literal paragraphs from your computer at 200 wpm+ to be impossible to flow well. You don't have to give me food or make le epic meme references in speech to get >29.

You can post-round if you like, but it probably won't do anything to change my decision. That being said, (respectful) questioning is generally not only fine but encouraged if you think I genuinely screwed you over (assuming we're the last flight of the day ofc). I'd prefer an easygoing conversation but can understand that emotions might run high after a bubble or elim round.

My judging + debate philosophy is mainly influenced by my fellow VDA debaters and coaches (Joseph Mai, Andrew Zhang, Stormee Massey, Todd Pengelly, Johnson Wu, etc), debate camp people I worked with (Evan Burkeen, Jenna Lee, Ilan Ben-Avi, etc), and any of my partners who bothered to write a paradigm. Reading theirs will probably cover any aspects of judging that I didn't talk about on my own.

TLDR; Tabula rasa former PFer who votes for the most warranted and comparative link won to the highest layer of offense in the round. I pref substance, topical Ks, theory, and performance but will ultimately vote for anything I understand. I prefer a relatively slower round but can handle up to <250 wpm.

Patrick Liu Outreach Debate

Tony Liu Outreach Debate None

Sean Lu Outreach Debate

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:40 PM EDT

Hi! My name is Sean and I've debated PF at Cranbrook for three years now. Pronouns He/Him/His.

my email is seanlu580@gmail.com for the email chain.

TLDR: Be nice, signpost and weigh. I can't vote if you don't tell me where to vote. When extending, please restate everything (uniqueness, link, and Impact) Don't Spread in PF. I don't believe in sticky defence, if it's important, respond to it. Please sign my ballot, tell me why you should win and why your opponents shouldn't.

Debate Stuff:

Tech > Truth, I am a flow judge. Willing to vote off of anything left in the round. If your opponents tell me that the sky is red with the correct warranting, the sky is red until you prove otherwise.

Start weighing in rebuttal if possible but at the latest in summary. Nothing new should be introduced starting after first summary. Responding to weighing is okay, but no new weighing after 2nd summary.

I generally don't think "probability" should be a weighing mechanism because it's just asking me to evaluate which side has a stronger link chain which I can do by looking at the responses on that contention.

On turns, do the comparative weighing. Tell me why the turn links into your opponent's impact.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other, aka extending the same args, with no new ink on the flow after summary.

Frontline in 2nd Rebuttal, Anything not responded to will be extended on my flow. I do not believe in sticky defence, extend it if it's important.

Collapse and signpost (tell me where you are at on the flow, i.e. "Now let's move onto my opponents C2 on Housing, here are five responses etc".) in the round, or else it gets messy and difficult for me to vote on.

When extending, restate the entire uniqueness + link chain + impact. If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on that argument

I default to Util as a FW, if you choose to run a different FW, extend it throughout the entire round with the cards and warrants. Tell me why your FW is better than Util.

Good with prog args, but I need more ballot directive language to tell me where to vote and why

I don't flow cross, if you want something to be known, say it in a speech.

This goes without saying: Don't be offensive (Being Racist, misgendering, homophobic etc.), I will drop you, 20L, no tolerance for this at all. Make debate a safe environment.

Please be nice when post rounding

Speaking Stuff:

I'm good with speed, although for PF, I don't believe in spreading as PF is supposed to be accessible to the public. That being said, I will not take off speaks for solely speaking fast or spreading. If 10 is top speed spreading, then I can handle about a 8. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down. If you reach a point where I cannot understand a single word you are saying, I will yell "clear", and after that, I will start deducting speaks if you don't enunciate better.

Regardless of speed, send speech docs with ALL CUT cards and rhetoric. No higher than 28s if you don't send.

Can skip grand cross for 90 seconds of prep for both sides if both teams agree, good with open crosses.

Have fun! Debate is supposed to be a fun environment and be willing to interact with me. i am not a stone statue. Granted, don't force jokes or make the environment awkward.

If you'd like to see my flow at the end, stay after my rfd and ask.

-1 for saying "starting with an off-time road map". Just tell me what side to start and go to.

I.e "Starting on aff and moving to neg, line by line"

+1 for good synergy and energy with your partner (I won't dock you speaks if you don't because at that point you have enough problems to worry about)

Auto 30 speaks if you say "My little ops" when referring to your opponents in every speech and cross. Make it clear though if you're spreading cuz I might not catch it.

-0.5 for every time you're aggressive to your opponents in cross. Don't interrogate your opponents like they're a criminal.

If you think your opponents have no path to the ballot at any point during the round, you can call a TKO and I will look at my flow and if I agree, the round ends there. If I don't then you auto-lose the round.

Don't give speeches during cross, it's actually super annoying

I start at 28 and will go up and down from there.

I’ll give speaks based on strategy, how well i can understand you, and (if necessary) rhetoric

+1 if you make me laugh

My pet peeve is when people tell me to vote for an argument because morally I am supposed to vote there without explaining why it is morally wrong. (Don't just say "X is bad") If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Alice Luo Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:57 AM EDT

Hello. I am Llice Auo (pronounced y-ee-che Ahh-ooo-oh). Sorry I typoed on the tab room. My dawg is good debater. He does spar but also sometimes Congress which is bad because I do not like the Senate. I have been judging Big Questions and world schools debate for thirty years.

The thought of a chain of emails disturbs me. And if you dare to add me (aliceluonh@gmail.com) to the chain of emails I will give you 10 speaks as I give speaks from one to ten with one being the best.

I am tech over truth because I like technology as I work as a content moderator at the facebook. I do not like the truth. If you dare to tell me the truth I will give you 11 speaks.

Speak as fast as you want as long as you go slow. If you go really slow, please send a doc.

Make sure to extend frontlines in first rebuttal or I will give you 12 speaks. Also extend your opponents' case in first constructive or I will have to give you 13 speaks.

I prefer unwarranted arguments because I do not want to get arrested. However if you read warrants please bring evidence and a lawyer.

Please do not weigh as I do not want to know how heavy I am. If you weigh I will give you 14 speaks.

I don't like the theories, especially conspiracy theories like the theory of evolution. However sometimes I will tolerate only the most serious theories like shoe theory.

I do not like the RVIs because if you look too close it look like DUI. I cannot get another one.

I prefer competition interpretations over reasonability because I am unreasonable.

Please do not read critiques, especially of my hair. However I am ok with the cap critiques and the Yoda critique. If you read the Yoda critique I will give you auto win and 1 speak.

I do not want you to read the framework because my picture frames work. If you do I will give you the 16 speaks.

I am ok with the Trix, but only if you tell me when to pour the milk. You must also bring enough to share with everyone.

I do not support section 230 so I will vote con.

In conclusion my dawg is a better debater than you. Please win.

Thank you.

Deanna Ma Outreach Debate

Last changed on Wed June 5, 2024 at 5:40 AM EDT

Hi friends! I’m Deanna, a sophomore at Lexington HS, and a second year PFer. I don’t expect novices to ask for lots of evidence, but I advise starting an email chain because it’s good practice. Please add me at deannamayq@gmail.com if you do start one!

If you have any questions about my paradigm or about debate in general, feel free to email me or ask before round :)

I will always disclose so long as all the debaters in the room are fine with it and the tournament allows.

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

If you're in a rush, here's a

TLDR: Bolded stuff = important stuff.I’m a tech judge and I really like to see good strategies executed well, even if they are simple. Adapt to me in terms of content (ie. you can run extinction impacts all you like), but don’t sacrifice your natural style of debating that makes you feel comfortable. Finally, don't be problematic (if it ends in -ism, don't try it).

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

--- General stuff ---

Clarity: being clear in speech and explaining arguments is very helpful for my ballot. You can reasonably clear your opponents as well. This also includes organizing points and responses (ie. signposting).
Speed: i can somewhat flow fast, but don’t go too fast. If you're going above 250 wpm send a speech doc and if you're going above 300 wpm, policy is in the building across :)

Evidence:
- I’m fine with paraphrasing but have cut cards ready - if you can’t produce evidence for an argument that isn’t an analytic it’s crossed off my flow.
- Do not violate NSDA rules on representing evidence - it’s an auto L with low speaks.
- If a round boils down to one card that is slightly miscut, (eg. to over-exaggerate impacts), but isn’t as egregious as NSDA violations, then it depends on if the other side calls it out and tells me why it is bad. If not, I will treat the rhetoric as real, but if I do notice it in round, I will give really low speaks, even if you win.
- Do evidence comparison! It is really good for shaping my ballot and remember to give a reason as to why your evidence is better.

Tech > truth: remember to warrant your arguments well for it to win on my flow and my ballot - I will not vote off an argument that I can't explain each part of, even if it's cleanly extended.
Time: i will stop flowing after time and let you finish your sentence. I used to think grace periods are okay in novice year, but it isn't how a lot of debates work in varsity. Please time yourselves and your opponents if you like.

Presumption: if I can't vote off any offense for either side, I presume whichever team that defends the status quo.

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

Cross:

I love cross! I won’t flow it but I will listen to it. If there’s something important that happens, bring it up in your next speech. Remember that there is a line between being assertive and being rude, don’t cross the line because part of your speaks come from cross. I dislike hearing ranting in cross or turning it into a speech, it gets annoying.

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

How I evaluate on the flow:

The round for me comes down to weighing on both sides. If you win the weighing debate, you win the round, insofar as what you weigh with have been extended throughout the round. Be comparative when you weigh, which includes meta-weighing! Saying “we outweigh on magnitude, our impact hurts 4 million people” without interaction with your opponent’s impact is not comparative. I buy that strength of link counts as probability weighing and if I don't get any weighing at all, I will probably default to that.

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

Framework:

I will evaluate them but please warrant it well. Remember to extend the ROTB/ROTJ in every speech unless you somehow aren't going for framework anymore. Always explain why your framework matters even if it is the only framework in the round and if it isn't, tell me why your framework should be evaluated first.

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

Back half (summary + final):

Please start collapsing during the summaries, you can also collapse in the rebuttals if you like. It makes the debate less messy if collapsing happens earlier than later. I advise to not go for everything.

Any new arguments or brand new responses that are brought up past second summary will not be evaluated. I see the final focus as a speech supposed to mirror and extend summary weighing and if the second summary brings new weighing, for the first speaking team to respond to that. Brand new weighing in final focus, unless responsive, in 2nd final, won’t be evaluated at all.

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

My takes on debate as a high school activity:

While I do agree that PF is more of a persuasive style of debating, I think a large part of it is also strategy and how you use what you know and researched. I like seeing good strategies being executed well. This doesn’t mean that if you are more comfortable going slow with heavy rhetoric, to just switch your style, but it does mean to adapt in terms of what you say and what you leave out.

If your strategy is to have stock contentions that you can frontline very well, do that. If your strategy is to purposefully say different types of arguments in the rebuttals to force your opponents into going for a weaker argument, do that. At the end of the day, high school debate is quite literally a game andin my opinion, you should have the space to adapt to each judge without coming at the cost of throwing away who you are as a debater.

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

--- Progressive Arguments ---

For any progressive arguments or pre-fiat impacts, tell me why it matters above substance/anything post-fiat and why I should look at it first on my ballot.

Theory:

Competing interps > reasonability, you can try convincing me otherwise.
If you’re gonna run friv, at least have some warranting in it.
I have my own beliefs on theory shells, but I won’t let that influence the round.
RVIs are a bit weird to me. I don’t exactly understand why someone should be voted up because they proved that they were being fair. I suppose, the shell can be a timesuck, but I feel that winning an RVI claim isn’t enough to really win the debate. Responding directly to the shell might honestly be better and more clear of a path to the ballot.

Kritks:

I'm not really familiar with them, run at your own risk.
If you do run them, please be slow and explain each part of the K, especially where I come in as the judge/my ballot.
I would prefer it if you don’t try anything high lit or phil. There’s a higher chance than not that even after some explanation, I still won’t understand it.

Tricks:

I don't see a point in them - but if you do run it, at least give me one warrant (it can be an ice spice warrant I don't care).
If you spread through it so fast that even I don't hear it, I won't evaluate it.
If you're gonna run tricks aimlessly with 0 warrant, LD is in the adjacent building.

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

---Speaks ---

I start at 28 unless you were rude or did/said something problematic (ie. -isms)

Mostly based off strat and cross

I don't care if you sit or stand or what you wear; be comfy and that's all that matters :)

Post round me if you like! I would be more than happy to show my flow and where I voted if it isn't clear enough in my RFD. If you manage to convince me that I made a mistake in the decision, I owe you one.

Here's my partner's (Aryan Sethi) paradigm which I agree mostly with if y'all need more ideas on how I judge.

If you need to make up something mid-round, roll with it and don't hesitate.

If the other team calls you out on it, double down and good luck.

Have fun and be confident! (it goes a long way, trust)

Dillon Ma Outreach Debate

Last changed on Wed May 8, 2024 at 4:03 AM EDT

email: dma2147@outlook.com - put me on the chain

Tl:Dr - 1 year out, tech but not hyper tech, have fun. make me laugh.

5 Years PF, mostly under Westfield DM. - Graduated 2024

Edit for PDA May Intramural. Unless you're MS Varisty or above all you need to know is that I know what I'm doing.

Feel free to email me with questions about the ballot or debate in general - you can also ask after/before round. Doesn't matter if I judged you or not tbh, always happy to help.

send docs if over 1k words, or if you are reading tricks, k, Theory, anything like that. Put me on the chain.

Tech>Truth, but like everyone else says, if you say something that sounds patently false, my bar for responses is going to be really low.

Conceded defense is sticky, frontlined defense isn't

If I call clear and you don't slow down or speak more clearly, you're dooming yourself.

I prefer to judge substance but I know how to eval most theory, Ks, tricks and phil, just make sure you aren't doing it to kids who have no clue what Prog or non-trad stuff is please. Its not fun for anyone. If you run any prog on novices I'll drop you immediately. Don't be that guy.

If you want the exact order

Impact debates (Spark, Dedev, etc)
LARP/Trad
Friv theory
Topical Ks
All other Theory
Non topical Ks
Anything else

Send any and all ev you read in the chain. Pf Evidence Ethics is non-existent and I will drop you for it if your opponents call you out on it. (If they don't I just tank speaks and get sad)

Weigh, metaweigh, link compare, implicate, all that good stuff. The more and the earlier the better.

For the love of everything good in this world please signpost

Auto 30s if y'all read any kind of fun impact turns or make the round not boring in general. You will make my day and likely the entire week. I don't think I hack for anything but extinction good, Climate change good, nuke war good, etc etc just make my life better.

If you're a novice and didn't understand any of that - don't worry its not a big deal - if you're interested in learning more - ask in round or send me an email.

I default Util, No RVIs, Competing interps. I presume neg on policy implementation and first on "do the benefits of x outweigh the harms". Give me a reason otherwise for any of those and I'll be willing to vote for it.

Also - this isn't TOC elims, this isn't a bubble round where if you lose you die, your debate career doesn't end with a loss here - so don't get too serious. Debate is something we are supposed to do for fun. Have a sense of humor, crack a joke, be nice to everyone. Some of the best rounds I've had are ones I've lost, but gained friends in the process.

Kion Manesh Outreach Debate

Tristan Mankovsky Outreach Debate

Last changed on Thu May 2, 2024 at 8:13 AM EDT

Hey! I’m Tristan (he/him). I'm a Freshman, and this is my first year in PF at The Potomac School! (Potomac ML)

Add me to the email chain: tmankovsky@potomacschool.org

—TD;LR—

Tech > Truth
Don't make me intervene, weigh, etc.
Email chains
Speed is ok to an extent; please be clear (enunciate, etc - i can manage 250+)
Send all hate mail and postround advocacy to zijia.mo@gmail.com

—GENERAL NOTES—

Setup the email chain before round starts, 30 minutes before is preferable
Send case docs/rebuttal docs in the email chain BEFORE you start your speech (if your not spreading I will just call for individual pieces of evidence as I see necessary)
Please label email chains so they're easy to organize. Ex. "Outreach R1 - [your team code] vs. [opponent team code]"
no cheating pls - I will drop you obviously
Disclosure good, para good on LAY

—QUICK PREFS LIST—

I love substance! I can generally understand most arguments pretty easily, and will most likely have debated the topic (feel free to ask beforehand though)
I'm fine with Theory (generally I think that disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is fine to an extent); If you don't know whether to run Theory with me as your judge or not, lean to substance - i've rarely judged/debated it.
Unlike my Partner, i'm not great with K's - would not recommend you reading this on me
Don't read prog on novices - if you do I'll play Brawl Stars for the whole round, give you L20s (or the lowest possible), and your opponents W30s. (However, if they are in the "varsity" division, then go ham ????)
In terms of spreading, go ahead, but BE CLEAR - I hold a high value in clarity because realistically if I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments. Send a doc if you're going fast, but even then I prefer not to use it.
Signposting is necessary - it's how I know where you are on the flow and makes my job at evaluating the round a lot more clear

—HOW I EVALUATE THE ROUND—

I first look to the link debate, this is the most important part for me. For me to buy your link, it needs to be extended properly and you should have good evidence for it. I don't care if your opponents concedes 3 contentions, if you don't extend the argument and the link, I'm not gonna buy it (I NEED WARRANTS!)
Then I look to the weighing debate. Meta-weighing WRITES MY BALLOT FOR ME. Please remember that "we outweigh on scope and magnitude" needs a warrant. Give me reasons on why I should prefer your argument, and extend turns, pre-reqs in summary and FF.You should also make your weighing comparative! If you don't weigh, I'll have to intervene, and if you don't like the decision, womp womp :(
I'll also look to case specifically. Extend and collapse. Also kick out of turns cleanly. In summary and FF, if you extend a delink and a turn, then the argument is a wash for me cause I'll assume the delink is true. If you're gonna extend defense, pick and choose wisely
Speaks are decided by a couple of factors: strategy, extensions/backhalf, narrative, appeal, clarity (just general speaking stuff). Be nice, I'll doc your speaks if your mean
I always presume neg. i think the whole "presume aff because of recency bias", or "presume 1st speaker because it's harder & bias" is stupid. if neither side has offense, I presume that the status quo is good.
Probability and Strength of Link weighing is REAL - I will evaluate it, as long as it has GOOD WARRANTING and CARDED PIECES OF EVIDENCE. (I have a very high threshold for this)

—GENERAL NOTES—

Flow judge. I'm paying attention to the round, I will probably be flowing on paper (paper > computer)
Tech > Truth
Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. If you are going to spread, you must send a speech doc, slow down on the tags, and be clear. If you’re unclear and I miss something, that’s on you
Do not be exclusive/discriminatory or __ist or else I will dock speaks/drop you. Don’t be a jerk and be polite and respectful. Debate is just debate, your life does not depend on winning a round, so please chill
You must read trigger warnings and/or provide an opt-out form if your case contains sensitive content. I do think there’s a difference between actually triggering and just uncomfortable, but it depends on the argument. You should always read a TW regardless, always make the debate space safe and accessible
Always extend and warrant your arguments properly. Quality > quantity
Signpost and please COLLAPSE, don’t spread yourself thin because you want to “generate more offense.” You are better off collapsing to one argument and spending more time weighing that argument than trying to extend three
WEIGH PLEASE. I love good weighing and meta-weighing, it makes the best debates and my job as a judge easier. I would hate if I have to judge intervene because no one weighed the debate.
New weighing in 1st FF is fine. No new weighing in 2nd FF pleaseeeee
Regardless of lay/flow/tech debate, narrative always matters. I need to understand your argument before I can vote on it, if I don't get it then that's on you. I'm not going to hack for a side because you are more flow or put down more responses in rebuttal. Write my ballot for me: extend, weigh, tell me why it matters
Anything in final focus should be in summary. I won't evaluate any new responses AT ALL
I consider anything dropped in 2nd rebuttal to be conceded. I don’t think defense is sticky. If you want me to evaluate something then you need to extend it!!!!!!!
I stop flowing 3 seconds after the speech time ends -- I think time management is important!!
If both teams agree you can skip grand cross for flex prep (1 minute)
No 30 speaks theory lol
I don’t flow cross, but I’ll (somewhat) listen. Always be polite and have fun, don’t scream or get mad, just be chill

—EVIDENCE—

Evidence Ethics: if you have an issue about your opponent's evidence you must BRING IT UP IN ROUND. If not, I will not evaluate any abuse of evidence. If you aren’t sure what the exact procedures for evidence citing/evidence abuse are, please read the NSDA evidence rules. Please note that evidence indicts are different than calling stop on a round for abusive/misconstrued evidence. If there is real abuse and you think its worth it, than you do you. But I also pay attention to evidence and most likely will catch on if a team is presenting misconstrued evidence. Read more at:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf
I hate bad evidence ethics - pls just be ethical

Share evidence through email chains only, this applies to online and in-person debate
All evidence should be CUT CARDS. If you don’t have the cut card, you need to at least have the link, the part in the article you cited from, and be able to pull up the accurate link address immediately. If you can't pull up the evidence when asked within ~1 minute (im flexible for computer issues), then I will cross it off my flow. You should always be prepared to show your evidence
I will only call for specific evidence if I’m told to and/or I feel like its a need to decide the round
You should always be RUNNING PREP when you are looking at your opponent’s evidence - I hate it when your stealing prep. However, I don't think that you need to run prep when your compiling a speech doc & sending it.

Huge thanks to Vivian Zhu, I copied most of my paradigm from her!

Adam Meskouri Outreach Debate

Last changed on Mon May 27, 2024 at 10:12 AM EDT

Experience

Umich'25

PF & a fair amount of policy -- currently coach a few circuit PF teams, many of whom have done well nationally.

Note: guys I was telling everyone for, like, MONTHS that they were gonna learn how to debate fwk and ontology vs. planless affs for the PF TOC and nobody believed me!!!!! But I was right!!!!!

Email chain: MCDPrepDocs@gmail.com & Meskouri@umich.edu

General/TLDR

Top: fairly experienced tech -- have evaluated basically everything. Adam, not "judge."

Yes K (both pre & post), yes theory, no excessive speed (usually good for like ~250 wpm with docs I think but anything further and I'll be cooked). Swearing is fine, just don't be egregious w/it.

PF judging is in a rough spot right now -- I frequently see bad judges get away with hilariously terrible decisions, even in elims and bid rounds (many of my 2-1s are blatant parent screws lol). I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen to you.

I thus encourage debaters to use my rounds to do/practice things that they can't do in front of other judges -- this means you should consider me open to any style of debate including substance, debates about debate, debates about debating about debate, etc. Do whatever you want, just be clear -- be flayish in presentation (err on the side of urgent > speedy) and I'll 100% catch everything. To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, prefiat/postfiat K, theory etc etc) so long as you aren't spreading (>250 wpm) through them. My camera will usually be off as it helps me flow better.

This paradigm is purposefully blippy as I recognize that, more often than not, paradigms aren't read in full prior to round. If you have any burning questions, ask!

Make a Garfield or Babytron reference for +0.5 speaks!

Specs

Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable) & preferably rebuttal docs with all ev and (only if you can) analytics-- I will cap speaks if constructive docs are not sent and will raise speaks if rebuttal docs are. To be clear, constructive docs are non-negotiable.
I really like good rounds and really hate bad rounds. Generally, “good” teams will be diligent about the LBL, give good OVs, signpost extremely well, and extend the right pieces of big picture offense/defense -- write my ballot for me. I tend to reward debaters for tricky responses, but that is not to say that you should be blipping out 15 incoherent analytics per minute. Remember to extend your warrants as a way of resolving clash!

K is chill, but only if you’re good at it – I haven’t been convinced that PFers can debate K like they can theory or substance quite yet. I can follow most reps Ks and many prefiat/performance ones. Similarly, I feel comfortable evaluating the responses to Ks (T-FW, TVA, SSD, ballot pik, perm etc). I can't follow phil.
DISCLAIMER: apparently I borderline hack for perfcons. I think they usually outweigh the ivi/shell/K and it is tough to convince me otherwise unless you're reading unfairness good.

Theory is cool! I like to think I’m a decent judge for it who has seen or evaluated most shells. Feel free to pref me if you read stuff like disclo, paraphrasing, speed, or any wacky non-friv (tbh, you can read friv, j be willing to commit to it). Don't spread through your shell. Going for 1-2 standards is usually better than blipping out 5 in final. The only part of theory that bores me is the bottom half (CI, RVI, etc). Obv, disclo is good and para is bad. But, I've voted for disclo bad and para good. Writing "contact info is term defense" on your wiki is silly and almost always unpersuasive and wrong.
T is a voter. Debated equally vs. a Kaff, it'll probably win. I'm pretty receptive to TVA and SSD on a truth level -- not sure how I feel about the ballot PIK. My views on debating vs. alts are the same as my views on debating vs. impacts: both of them deserve more analysis and defense/offense. Procedural fairness probably o/w most impacts absent a great explanation of how the performance does something tangible and why that round specifically is k2 something important. I'll vote on fairness impact turns.
Egregious speed is bad -- assume I can follow 65-70% of your top pace. The back half should be slower than the front half. Not sure how I feel about new ev in second sum.

Cheating is bad. I will do my best to ensure that the 2FF doesn't get away with murder. Have cut cards ready to send ASAP -- I won't accept hyperlinks. You have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal. DAs in rebuttal are obviously fine. (and probably underutilized if you can explain why the DA o/w their link).

A lot of "turns" in PF are just DAs. If your turn isn't responsive to the actual link and instead says that the aff/neg does something tangential which makes their impact worse, you need to spend way more time weighing the turn against their link. If the turn IS responsive, you need to do a little less of that.
Defense is kinda sticky because the time constraints of PF make extending everything hard, BUT that does not mean you don’t have to say “extend the mining NL” for me to flow it.

A quick tip: if you're spending 30s/speech on it while they're spending 2m/speech, they're probably winning it.
Debate in a way that allows fun for everyone.

Zijia Mo Outreach Debate

Ryan Panjwani Outreach Debate None

Maria Pelaez Outreach Debate

Ramon Perez Outreach Debate

Gavin Poore Outreach Debate

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 8:53 AM EDT

Pembroke Pines Charter ‘24 | Emory '28

TLDR

I debated in PF for 3 years in high school, qualed to Nats, TOC, FFL, etc. i also did some worlds

Tech > Truth, debate is a game - play to win

Speed is fine just send docs. Add me to the chain: pooregavin@gmail.com

im quite a big fan of impact defense and impact turns. make the round fun

Prefs:

LARP/Policy - 1

Theory - 3

Topical K- 3

Non T K - 4

High Theory - 4/5

Trix - S

Longer General Stuff:

I'll vote on basically any arg that has a warrant and isn't inherently exclusionary/problematic.

Pre flow before the round pls

Signposting is amazing

Go for whatever strategy/arg you want, feel free to experiment. I read lots of squirrelly args in high school, so id be happy to hear them.
Collapse pls and thanks

Extend every part of the arg that ur going for (extensions of warrants matter a lot esp for impacts). offense should be explicitly extended in summary and ff, no new things in ff though. Yet, 1st ff can respond to 2nd summary weighing, and 2nd ff can respond to 1st ff weighing. defense isn't sticky
Be a nice person in round

Frontline in second rebuttal

Real clash is appreciated

Pls weigh, the arg that wins the weighing is what ill evaluate first, but plsgive me a reason to prefer your weighing (link-ins and meta weighing are great)

u dont need to extend opponents' link for an impact turn

i presume neg

Prog:

Im alright with prog, but I’m not the most experienced.

for theory: i default to competing interps and no rvi's. i wont hack for any shell, but i do think its significantly harder to win certain interps (disclo bad, paraphrasing good, etc). weigh the voters pls

for Ks: pls make sure to explain the lit. I'd recommend treating me like a lay judge with these.

Im probably not the best judge if you want to run a plan

Check out some masterful basketball gameplay from my bestie & partner Aakash Suresh below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLHZ9-I_j6w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px5yDNiihg4

Rohin Prashanth Outreach Debate

Pranav Ravulapati Outreach Debate

Sinan Roumie Hire

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 7:59 AM EDT

TLDR: Good with Substance, Ks, theory, whatever u want to debate. Over 200wpm, and I'll prob need a doc.

Sinan Roumie (He/Him/His)

Sinanrdebate@gmail.com

I'm a Senior at Bronx Science and have been doing PF for the past four years + a little bit of CX.

Tech > Truth

NO POST ROUNDING. You can ask for feedback, but I'm not interested in you telling me every point in your case and how you should have won. Adapt better, your final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

Anything remotely racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, homophobic etc, etc will result in an automatic L20

Important In Round Stuff

Nothing is sticky; extend what you want me to evaluate
Good with speed, but FF & summary should be slow to clarify offense
***I don’t like to do evidence comparisons, I want to vote solely off my flow/what y’all tell me to vote for. However, if an evidence claim is brought up in round I will vote off a lack of evidence/ bad evidence, even if that claim is not a direct evidence challenge.
Keep your offtime road maps brief
I listen to cross but it won’t sign my ballot
Both teams can agree to skip grand for prep
I presume NEG, unless told otherwise
Speak overtime and I'll stop flowing

Progressive arguments:

If you are in Varsity, be prepared to hit varsity arguments.
Everything should be warranted, especially in the back half.
Feel free to run progressive arguments on newbies. I think it’s funny, and people learn how to debate these arguments when exposed to them. DON'T DEBATE DOWN- treat every round like its your bubble.
I don't have a default for what should be evaluated first in the round other than prefiat>postfiat. Def warrant why K>theory, theory>K, etc.

[Theory]:

Fairness is an internal link, not an impact.
Baiting theory is fine. It's a valid strategy. If you read baiting theory as a warrant for No RVIs, I'll evaluate it, but I need further implications on why it is bad.
I default yes RVIs if there's no ink on that debate
+1 speaker point if you specify whether RVIs apply to offense or defense
+1.5 speaker points if you read RVI spec [+0.5 more if you win on it]

[K's]:

Alt should resolve the link- rejecting the aff is not a good alt(unless it is)
You can spread cards in the 1NC, but i gotta actually understand them by final
I prefer Identity Ks > philosophical Ks mainly because I understand Identity args better.
Speaks:

Performance - if it's good ill give 30s
Egregious Clipping - speaks cap’d at 28
Paraphrasing - speaks cap’d at 27
Callout K - speaks cap’d at 25

[K AFF's]:

Topical affs are cool, Nontopical affs are also cool.
Please, please, please have a topic link. Too many affs nowadays don't have topic links, and while that's fine, it would make adjudicating so much easier.
Please only read a K aff if you are good at debating it. I have a high threshold for them

[Trix]:

Not experienced with them, run them at your own risk

Speaks

30 speaks warrants have to be extended for it to be eval’d
Speaks are based on round strategy, not speaking style
-1 speaks if you are a big school that adds an xyzdocs@gmail.com to the chain

Richard Shan Outreach Debate

Alan Tai Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 9:35 PM PDT

Currently debating for Monta Vista TG in PF, so this entire paradigm is centered around PF. You're probably only reading this paradigm if I'm judging for a camp or practice round.

Tech > truth; debate is a game. Take something out of all of your rounds.

Here's what I try to do: I look to the arguments that are being won in round. If there is conflicting offense, I look toward the weighing. Default to magnitude. If there is no offense, I presume neg/the squo.

GENERAL: Start on time please. It's not for my sake but the sake of other competitors. You can assume I have background knowledge of the topic (as in I've debated it). 99.9% of the topics I genuinely don't have an opinion on. PF doesn't specify grace periods but y'all can have 10 seconds. You're welcome!! Sit/stand/squat/lie down. Don't be any "-ist" in round or your speaks (and possibly you as well) are going to drop. I understand stuff can be unintentional but try to make debate a safe space.

I really like warranted impact scenarios and quantifications.

EVIDENCE: Add me on email chains - it's alantai19 [AT] gmail.com. Speechdrop or tab file share is okay too. I will be happy if you send speech docs with cut cards before constructive and rebuttal. If y'all decide not to send speech docs, please do not take forever to send stuff off-prep (other team can steal prep while you send ev). Take prep if reading the other team's evidence. I am willing to stop rounds if there is an evidence violation and follow tournament/NSDA guidelines (basically, you can TKO).

Please provide cut cards when sending evidence!

SPEED: Speed is fine. Fast debates are fun. If you're spreading at policy speeds, send speech docs. I will say "clear" if you are genuinely going too fast and I am dying trying to flow your speech. Go slower in summary or FF, condensing in the back half is good! Please don't spread if you're not in Varsity/Open. It's kind of cringe and you're gonna make some teams quit debate.

BACK HALF: 2nd rebuttal has to frontline! If you don't then you're probably losing the round. Please collapse in summary, and if you don't, then you have to weigh or the debate becomes a complete mess. Everything in FF should have been in summary. Defense is not sticky. My bar for extensions is honestly not high but do them anyway. Extend uq, link, il, impact. All ev extended should have author name + year.

Make sure to signpost and weigh. If no one weighs, then I'll have to do the implication for you and I don't want to do that. I default to strength of link and magnitude. Probability weighing doesn't exist - read impact defense and weigh internal links. If you turn an argument, extend and weigh their impact or else I won't know how to evaluate it. If you bring up an indict, tell me how to evaluate it. I will only call for evidence if it comes down to it.

I like hearing evidence comparison in round. Is your evidence newer? Why does that matter? What factors does your evidence account for that theirs doesn't? I will call for evidence if it comes down to it. I also like good analytics. Implicate your analytics. I have to admit that I am unlikely to vote on an analytic against someone's warranted link chain, so use evidence.

CROSSFIRE: Please stare at me during crossfire and look up at least a bit during your speech. I don't listen to the content of cross (but it might affect speaks, be respectful and give about half of the cross to your opponent). If you want to implicate something from cross then do it in your speech. Open cross is okay if everyone says so. You all can also skip grand for prep if you want.

SPEAKS: I'll average probably 29.3 for speaks. I like giving high speaks with the speak inflation happening. Higher speaks if you wear socks of your school color (let me know before or right after round and I'll confirm it). Auto 30s if you read from an upside-down laptop or upside-down flow paper (given that you're respectful and don't run friv theory or tricks). Or just read 30 speaks theory and I'll probably buy it.

PROGRESSIVE:

If you're reading something progressive and you're not in Varsity, then treat me like a lay judge when explaining it and read it in a way that your opponents can understand it. If you're in Varsity, I expect that you are ready for Varsity level argumentation as described below...

On theory: I am biased toward paraphrasing is bad and disclosure and TWs are good (please just read a TW with opt-out, it is very hard both on the flow and emotionally to evaluate debates over TWs). If no team reads paradigm issues I default to the following: CIs > reasonability, yes RVIs, DTD. Also, spirit > text. Gut check your friv theory before reading in front of me. My brightline for responses will be hella low.

On kritiks: I've decided that I don't really trust myself to judge a K. But I am 100% open to hearing one. Explain it well.

Please don't read tricks or phil. They confuse me and make me sad and I will drop you. Maybe send me an email with some reading to do.

EXAMPLES OF STUFF I'LL EVALUATE:

Here's examples of stuff I'll happily evaluate or not evaluate if this helps you get an idea of what you should read:
- WILL EVALUATE: dates theory, elections ptx (any candidate), space col, crazy nuke war scenarios, self-replicating nanobots
- WILL NOT WANT TO EVALUATE: must spec ROTB, dinosaur theory, plans/CPs, meme framing

END OF ROUND:

I will disclose after submitting my ballot unless tournament rules prohibit it and give a verbal RFD. I am willing to drop a team over misconstrued evidence. Stop the round if you believe this has happened and I will take a look at the evidence. But stake the round BEFORE I make my decision. Depending on how bad the violation is, I will either drop the team with low speaks or drop the evidence from the round.

Yes to post-rounding because I am not a perfect judge. If the tournament is running over, email me w/ questions since I don't want to cause delays.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS/POLICY

I have tried to understand whatever the hell Kant is talking about, but sorry, my brain doesn't work like that. Also tried to understand whatever truth testing vs. comparative worlds means, but sorry, didn't get it. Refer to my PF paradigm and you'll probably understand what you can read (stick to LARP/T/Theory).

Christopher Tang Outreach Debate

Ruiyu Tang Outreach Debate

Aaron Tian Outreach Debate

Alex Wang Outreach Debate

Charlie Yang Outreach Debate

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:54 AM CDT

Kinkaid (Y)Z ‘25

PUT ME ON THE CHAIN – charlie.yang@kinkaid.org (yes this means use a chain and yes send speech docs w cut cards for case + rebuttal)

For Outreach tourney –

Ig since the tourney has a novice pool now im fine with prog in varsity

Also have cams on if possible

I’ll start speaks at 29 and go up and down based on strategy, argumentation, and how entertaining the round is

Maybe go 75-80% of your top speed (if you usually go fast) especially if you know your mic is bad – if you want to know if i can understand you at whatever speed, just read like 10 secs of case before round and ill let u know

How to get 30 speaks at Outreach (bc i dont want to speak screw ppl)

2nd constructive/1st rebuttal of only impact turns (or at least a good portion) (just dont impact turn oppression or anything like that, ill eval anything else, i’ve personally read cc good, spark, and dedev)

Fun prog round (only if opponents arent novices) (pls dont make me judge something like tricks vs tricks)

Read a substance argument I haven’t thought of/heard about (tbh this applies to everything ie if you do some weighing I hadn’t thought of)

Don’t sound like a robot (this means make jokes, chill out, have a fun time, sound like you actually want to be here etc etc)

No 30 speaks theory bc thats too easy

General

Do whatever you’re comfortable with

I learned debate from a techier background and my school is a policy debate-centric school – take that as you will

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact. (if you can tell me who’s paradigm this is from ill give you and your partner 30s)

Tech>Truth but more truth makes it easier to win tech (ie you’ll probably find it easier to win the sky is blue vs the sky is red)

Any speed is fine but clarity>speed, pls send speech docs for case+constructive for +0.5 speaks

I will vote on literally anything (yes im serious about that) as long as:

The arg isnt discriminatory
The arg is a complete arg (means has a warrant, impact…)
You actually win the argument

Summary and FF should write my ballot -- ballot directive language goes a long way (tell me exactly where to vote, why I'm voting there, etc)

I disagree with everything on Jason Zhang’s paradigm

Im fine with some aggression/poking fun (and cussing ig), but there is a difference between that and just being mean

More Specifics

Extend every part of your argument WITH WARRANTS (if you don’t idrc BUT if your opponents correctly call you out on it i’ll be inclined not to vote on the argument)

Pls pls pls do comparative weighing or i’ll probably intervene and you prob won’t like that (but if you don’t win case idc about weighing – conceded weighing doesnt matter if you aren’t winning a link into it)

I wont call for/read evidence unless you explicitly tell me to or if i have to intervene b/c there's no clash in the round

Implicate your responses or ill be confused

If i need to resolve clash:

Warranted card > warranted analytic > unwarranted card > unwarranted analytics

Conceded arguments are true but new implications/weighing of conceded arguments can be contested and I WILL eval cross-apping stuff to conceded arguments as mitigation (i think crossapps in general are very strategic ie cross applying a conceded response on their C1 to take out their C2)

Evidence

please read cut cards, if u don't read cut cards, please don't send hyperlinks/entire pdfs when someone calls for ev

tbh idrc about evidence ethics -- like indicts are cool and feel free to call out shitty ev cause pf ev is horrible HOWEVER i wont actively look for bad ev and if i notice bad ev but you don't call it out that's kinda a skill issue tbh

don't clip

“Prog” stuff

Ill eval anything

Prob fine with any prog argument pfers read (if you’re reading high theory, super complicated ks, or like weird tricks or presumption stuff pls slow down and actually explain things or i will be confused and probably not vote for it)

“Prog” stuff doesn’t need to be extended in rebuttal (applies to theory and ks)

Theory

I won't hack for anything

Ill default CI>reasonabilty, DTD>DTA, text>spirit but can be convinced otherwise

Pls actually weigh voters and definitely weigh if both teams are reading shells or the debate is gonna be super super messy

Controversial but friv theory does not exist – ill eval all shells the same – if you think a shell is “friv” it should be easier to respond to anyways (ofc im open to reasonability/gut check arguments, i just won’t automatically treat smth differently because its “friv”)

Fine with ks but the more jargony the taglines the more confused ill be (this means dumb down your tags pls)

Ks need to have an alt/method/some sort of solvency or there’s no offense off of it. With that in mind, i will be sympathetic to spec/vague alts/vague rotb theory arguments if i have no idea what your alt means or does

I am somewhat skeptical of reading Ks as 1st neg (ie reading a k in the 1nc w/o the 1ac linking) but ig if you give a reason as to why affirming would inevitably link ig youre fine? (tbh its less confusing if you just read it in 1st rebuttal after the aff links)

Im fine with K affs or nonT (and chill w any responses against these arguments)

(personally my partner and just read a bunch of offs but i will be impressed + boost speaks if you win with 1 off then case)

Especially for K affs – DISCOURSE IS NOT A METHOD – i will be very confused as to what discourse means and i probably won’t vote for the K – please read any other method besides this (rage, disruption, humor…)

I default theory > k, fairness is a voter, rotb vote for better debater but again can be convinced otherwise

Wenzhuo Zhang Outreach Debate

Last changed on Wed March 13, 2024 at 8:34 AM CDT

Kinkaid YZ '25

I am easily distracted and I prefer debaters to be both engaging and entertaining. If I appear distracted, it may be your fault - Eric Emerson

jsh27335@gmail.com

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

1. LARP

2. Theory

3. Ks & K Affs

4-5. Tricks or Phil

I'll start from 28.5 but if you're funny or run cool (and stupid) arguments I'll go up from there.

Speaks will also reward smart strategies (reading defense that can be cross-applied to another argument later on and baiting them to concede it with offense, good collapse strategies, leveraging unq to handle responses, etc...)

TLDR-I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Speed -

If you're gonna go fast send a doc but if ur super unclear don't expect me to flow straight from the doc. Specifcally for high theory or complicated K's, I want to hear everything explained to me very slowly and methodically or else I'm literally not going to understand anything and have a super low threshold for responses.

I'm fine with cases in constructives that r rly long but know u have the burden to explain everything. Teams often just read one word taglines ("thus," "indeed,") and then speed through the actual card which rly pisses me off cause I lit have no idea what ur card is saying.

Rebuttal is the one place I'm gonna fuss alot about speed. So many teams just doc bot an insane amount of prep and it makes me sad. I'm a. not going to be able to catch anything you've said and b. have no idea what the implication of your responses are because you're reading evidence without explaining it. I understand the strategy of stretching the other team out and going for a piece of conceded defense but I prob just won't evaluate it if its on my flow.

Ppl also sleep on analytics. I LOVE THEM. In an era where people love reading long link chains into extinction scenarios, the best place to take it out is at its weakest - which is probably their hyperbolical internal link. So if you just make smart analytical internal link/impact defense I'll 100% evaluate it if it's well implicated.

Defense is sticky if it wasn't responded to.

Your extensions in summary should be thorough. Extend the entirety of the warranting!!! Smart teams hide nuances within their case that's overlooked in rebuttal but brought to life in the extensions of summaries. Also I might just not understand ur link chain the first time in constructive but a good extension in summary might change that. .

In final, I want a wholistic view of the round; line by line finals are fine but I'd rather you tell me why exactly you're winning the round. Your mission should be to make me do as little work as possible and sometimes that means changing up the order of ur ff. I.e if the cleanest place to vote is the weighing then start there, or if the cleanest place is a turn then start there... Crystallizing the round really helps me cause I'm lazy so just tell me where the least mitigated link chain is

Too many teams place so much emphasis on weighing that they don't actually win the argument that they're trying to weigh first. WIN your link into your argument so I can give you access to your weighing!!! Will weighing break the clash when both team's links are muddled? Yes ofc. Will weighing help you if your link has 10 pieces of conceded defense and theirs is clean? No ofc.

I wont call for/read evidence unless you explicitly tell me to. Also if you're indicting their evidence be as specific as possible on which line/sentence of their evidence is miscut.

Contrary to alot of other judges I'm p chill with IVIs whether it's for evidence ethics or other stuff - just make sure it isn't super blippy and as long as you're warranting out as to why I should dtd for smth I'm chill that you don't read it in a full shell format

For Theory:

Disclosure is good (Full text>)
Paraphrasing is bad
Card clipping is bad
Content warnings (My opinion on this can be changed, but refer to Gabe Rusk's paradigm about content warnings since that's my starting point)
Friv theory funny (and ill evaluate it fairly)

I'll just the round fairly. If you win that para is good or that disclosure is bad, I'll begrudgingly vote for you.

I think my threshold for theory is not super high but I won't hack for any shells. Therefore, I'll also evalute theory responses that I'm highly repungant to (our coaches don't let us disclose, we don't know how to disclose) if they're conceded although my threshold for frontlining these stuff is rly low

For Ks:

This rly isn't Ks butI learned debate from a cx focused school and ran alot of soft left args w framing so I'm prob more open to those args than most other ppl. If you can rly sell me framing (Explain the framing well, read unique framing, and implicate as to why ur opponents don't link in and why you do), my threshold for responses is gonna be pretty high. That being said, I think extinction first framing with the same warrants is pretty boring and easy to respond to so break some cool framing if u have em.

For actual Ks - it needs to have very clear alt/method/some sort of solvency or I will be very skeptical. Thus, I will also have a low threshold for spec/vague alts/vague rotb theory arguments if your solvency is undercontextualized

I'm prob fine w stock stuff like set col, cap, sec etc... but if ur lit is more complicated like baudry or stuff like that then def spend more time explaining/extending every part of it slowly

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

Back in my day, I beat Daniel Guo (one of the best debaters of my generation) two times in a row. I'm serious business, kid.

^^^^^^

I am sorry for my unbecoming comments posted above. Debaters should never gloat over victories. The truth is Daniel has always been a sore spot for me. Daniel ended my middle school debate career on a 2-1 decision at the Middle School Tournament of champions. Seriously, I cried for two hours. My young heart was broken and my dreams shattered. Daniel, I would like to extend a public apology for my rude comments posted above.

Vivian Zhu Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:04 AM EDT

Hi, I’m Vivian (she/her). Senior at Ridge. I do PF and did Worlds with USA Dev’ 23 and LD for 2 years.

Add me to the email chain: vivianz5406@gmail.com

— HOUSEKEEPING STUFF —

Setup the email chain before round starts and immediately when everyone is in the room
Send case docs/rebuttal docs in the email chain BEFORE you start your speech
All speech docs must be sent in either WORD, PDF, or paste the cut cards into the email
Do not send Google Docs for speech docs or evidence-exchange. I need a record of what happened in the round if anything happens, email chains are always your best friend
You should never be communicating with anyone outside of the round/room or any spectators. This includes messages and doc-botting. If I catch you for it, I will report your team and you may be potentially disqualified. Play by the rules of the game, there is no reason for you to cheat
+1 speaks if you bring me a drink for in-person rounds. Literally anything: soda, sweet tea, snapple, gatorade, or even your favorite coffee order : ) Even better if you bring me food

— QUICK PREFS LIST —

1- Substance/Flow/LARP/Lay

2- Topicality/Theory

3- Kritiks (run at your own discretion)

4- Strike me if you run: tricks, phil, performance (I don’t like friv theory)

— HOW I EVALUATE THE ROUND—

I first look to the link debate, this is the most important part for me. For me to buy your link, it needs to be extended properly and you should have good evidence for it. I don't care if your opponents concedes 3 contentions, if you don't extend the argument and the link, I'm not gonna buy it
I also look to the weighing debate. Meta-weighing WRITES MY BALLOT FOR ME. Please remember that "we outweigh on scope and magnitude" needs a warrant. Give me reasons on why I should prefer your argument, and extend turns, pre-reqs in summary and FF. If you don't weigh, I'll have to judge intervene, and if you don't like the decision, womp :(
I'll also look to case specifically. Extend and collapse. Also kick out of turns cleanly. In summary and FF, if you extend a delink and a turn, then the argument is a wash for me cause I'll assume the delink is true. If you're gonna extend defense, pick and choose wisely
Speaks are decided by a couple of factors: did you bring me a drink/food (yes I care), strategy, extensions/backhalf, and narrative. If you were a jerk in round, I might dock your speaks so be nice :)

— GENERAL NOTES —

Flow judge. I flow on a computer so I’ll be typing. You don’t need to worry, I am paying attention to the round
Tech > Truth (unless you say something absurdly untrue and BS)
Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. If you are going to spread, you must send a speech doc, slow down on the tags, and be clear. If you’re unclear and I miss something, that’s on you
Do not be exclusive/discriminatory or __ist or else I will dock speaks/drop you. Don’t be a jerk and be polite and respectful. Debate is just debate, your life does not depend on winning a round, so please chill
You must read trigger warnings and/or provide an opt-out form if your case contains sensitive content. I do think there’s a difference between actually triggering and just uncomfortable, but it depends on the argument. You should always read a TW regardless, always make the debate space safe and accessible
Always extend and warrant your arguments properly. Quality > quantity
Signpost and please COLLAPSE, don’t spread yourself thin because you want to “generate more offense.” You are better off collapsing to one argument and spending more time weighing that argument than trying to extend three
WEIGH PLEASE. I love good weighing and meta-weighing, it makes the best debates and my job as a judge easier. I would hate if I have to judge intervene because no one weighed the debate.
New weighing in 1st FF is fine, but no new prereqs. No new weighing in 2nd FF
Regardless of lay/flow/tech debate, narrative always matters. I need to understand your argument before I can vote on it, if I don't get it then that's on you. I'm not going to hack for a side because you are more flow or put down more responses in rebuttal. Write my ballot for me: extend, weigh, tell me why it matters
Anything in final focus should be in summary. I won't evaluate any new responses
I consider anything dropped in 2nd rebuttal to be conceded. I don’t think defense is sticky. If you want me to evaluate something then you need to extend it
I give about 10 seconds of grace periods, anything over I’ll stop flowing
If both teams agree you can skip grand cross for flex prep
If both sides agree to do a lay round, I’ll be a lay judge and vote for the most persuasive sides and I’ll give everyone 30 speaks
I don’t flow cross, but I’ll (somewhat) listen. Always be polite and have fun, don’t scream or get mad, just be chill

— FRAMING —

I love a good and unique framework. Most familiar with SV (and any variation of it), extinction first, conseq, and other generic ones
If you are going to run FW please warrant and explain it properly. I am rusty on a lot of topic literature so don’t expect that I know everything
If you read FW you need to explain why your case achieves that and why it matters
I will presume util or evaluate the round under whatever weighing mechanism is given unless specific framing is read
FW is your best friend in K rounds, don’t be hesitant to read one

— TOPICALITY/THEORY —

I will evaluate theory, but I have a high threshold for it. If there is actual abuse in the round, go for it. If you’re trying to get the easy win, then don’t
Go slow on the analytics, interp/counter-interp text, and paradigm issues/voters. If you go too fast I’ll probably miss something
You must read paradigm issues and voters and give me the narrative on why there is abuse, why they violate, and why I should care
You must EXTEND the shell and warrant it. You need to at least reread the tags and not just frontline. But rereading is not enough, extend the warrants and the why they violate and why I should care narrative
“Vote theory because its the highest layer in the round” needs a warrant, just because you’re reading prog does not mean you can abandon the fundamentals of debate
Weigh between standards/paradigm issues and tell me why the ballot matters and why the other team is being unfair. Again, give me the full story
Everything needs a warrant, ie. why should I default CIs or reasonability. I don’t always default something because I think each round and each shell is different hence each ballot is evaluated differently
I think some good norms you should practice are: disclosure/open source, round reports, contact info, and everything under the NSDA event rules. I will not, however, hack for these arguments, I evaluate everything on how its debated
See more about paraphrasing in the evidence section of my paradigm

— KRITIKS —

I like interesting K debates and I’ve run them in the past. I can evaluate common ones and I know enough/hit a decent amount of Ks to evaluate K debates in PF, but I’m not that knowledgeable on complicated literature/high theory Ks, so run it at your own discretion
No ALT is fine in PF, but you need to read clear framing/ROTB
You need to read why discourse matters and give me the reason why the ballot is important and key to your discourse
EXTEND THE K IN SUMMARY > If you only respond to rebuttal and you don’t extend the actual K and ROTB itself, don’t bank on me granting you full offense of the K
If you don’t understand what a K is saying and you are purely running it because you know the other team can’t respond, don’t run it. If you are going to run a K, you should be able to explain it easily

— EVIDENCE —

Evidence Ethics: if you have an issue about your opponent's evidence you must BRING IT UP IN ROUND. If not, I will not evaluate any abuse of evidence. If you aren’t sure what the exact procedures for evidence citing/evidence abuse are, please read the NSDA evidence rules. Please note that evidence indicts are different than calling stop on a round for abusive/misconstrued evidence. Do not call stop on a round and challenge a piece of evidence just because you are losing, I think that's a horrible norm and thing to do. Just have a debate, but if there is real abuse and you think its worth it, than you do you. But I also pay attention to evidence and most likely will catch on if a team is presenting misconstrued evidence. Read more at: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf
Follow my rules on speech docs at the top of my paradigm
Share evidence through email chains only, this applies to online and in-person debate
I am fine if you paraphrase, but if you paraphrase you need to send both the rhetoric and the cut cards in the email chain. Paraphrasing also must follow the NSDA evidence rules, you cannot misconstrue evidence
All evidence should be CUT CARDS. If you don’t have the cut card, you need to at least have the link, the part in the article you cited from, and be able to pull up the accurate link address immediately. If you can't pull up the evidence when asked within 1 minute, then I will cross it off my flow. You should always be prepared to show your evidence
I will only call for specific evidence if I’m told to and/or I feel like its a need to decide the round
You should always be RUNNING PREP when you are looking at your opponent’s evidence if it’s outside of a speech/cross and when you are compiling a doc. Compiling the doc always uses prep, sending the doc does not use prep

— LD—

I did LD for about 2 years and I mainly did trad debate and can understand most LARP. I am still flow, tech > truth, but I will say I am rusty on a lot of stuff
I love a good framework, so please read value, vc, and why I should prefer warrants. Always remember to prove why your case wins under the FW of the round
Please EXTEND your arguments, especially the link and solvency. I have judged a lot of LD rounds where arguments are conceded but not extended properly. I need to know how your side solves/how the aff doesn't. If you read plans, CPs, ROTB, alts, perms, etc. you need to explain why you solve and why you solve better. Front-lining isn't enough
COLLAPSE. A lot of LDers like to run a bunch of advantages and disads and then go for too much. Instead of spreading yourself thin, its best if you collapse to one thing (adv, disad, shell, etc.) and weigh that argument
No new responses in the 2NR and 2AR. If an argument is dropped in the 1NR, then I consider it conceded, the same goes for the 1AR
The 2NR and 2AR should really write my ballot for me: tell me why your case wins, why you win the FW, and why your impacts outweigh. I love meta-weighing, it makes my job easier
For theory, you need to specify if your shell is condo or non-condo some point in the round. If you're going to read theory, refer to the theory section of my paradigm
For Ks, I am pretty rusty on a lot of topic literature. I can probably evaluate some common ones, but I can't promise I'll evaluate correctly. If you're going to read one, you must read an alt, ROTB, and solvency warrants
I can handle speed, but if you're going to spread please send a doc

— WORLDS/PARLI —

I love clear framing in the 1. This means clear definitions, a good contextualization of the motion ie. what does the status quo look like right now and/or what the world would look like on your side of the house
Run counterfactuals/counter-models at your own risk. You’ve probably heard this from any experienced Worlds coach/judge/competitor, only run a model if you need to, don’t run it because you can’t think of another argument on the opposition
I think countermodels should be mutually exclusive, but not always. It is up to you to prove to me why or why not the model is good or bad
Remember that Worlds is your most traditional event: no progressive arguments, no evidence unless prepared motions, you should use analysis and examples to make comparative claims
Comparative worlds weighing is the best! Tell me why your world is more preferable, give me the full narrative, and why the world on your side of the house is better
Always signpost and tell me where you are at on the flow, regardless of how you organize your arguments
The 3 and the 4 should NOT be the same speech! It should mirror each other to some extent. The three should really tie up the loose ends and do the comparative for me. I think good 3s are typically in the questions format or the macro/micro level analysis. The 4 should crystalize the round and really use ballot-directing language
Principal > Practical, but you need to do the analysis for me to buy this. Remember to keep an eye out for principals hung on the practical

Login to Tabroom

Outreach Debate Winter Camp Tournament 2023

2023 — Online, MA/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

Judges