For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and have coached there since. Most competitive results are viewable here.

General

I am persuaded first and foremost by the arguments articulated by the debaters. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.

Sounds analytics are often convincing, usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot understand or follow.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear; debate is an oral activity. Your research and critical thinking only matter if you can communicate it.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Relevant stuff still must make its way into a speech.

Flex prep is fine. However, I will not care if your opponents do not answer clarifying questions, especially if I thought they were clear.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak (word, preferably). This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not mandatory assuming there is clear verbal marking in-speech.

Stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules. I will not evaluate theory arguments about rules violations.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and parsing clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even good weighing will not always get you out of sloppy or underwhelming case debating.

Probability weighing is best when comparative to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.

The Pro and Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are probably counter-plan adjacent.

I reward creativity and hard work.

LD/CX

I have enough exposure to keep up.

Best for policy debates; fine for most else.

Not a huge fan of pushing condo to its limits.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention on my end than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.

I am predisposed to believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Err on the side of over-explanation. Impact stuff out, like fully impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Hey, I’m Ethan. I debated as Myers Park BJ on the nat circuit for 4 years. I am now a sophomore at Emory and coach for Canyon Crest Academy.

Add me to the chain- ethan.jacobs@emory.edu

TL;DR- Run anything you think will win. I adapt to you but have some quality-of-life preferences.

Speed- I don’t flow with docs but you can read as fast as you want. Any PF speed should be fine. The burden is on you to enunciate. I will only say clear twice.

Evidence Exchange- Please send speech docs with evidence before speeches to keep ev exchange timely.

Trad Stuff

Weighing- Having a good argument is not enough, it needs to be better than your opponents. Saying “We have the biggest number” is not enough. Why is having the biggest number important in the context of the round? I think teams should be creative about link-ins, prereqs etc to avoid being “nuked” out of the round by large impacts. I think framework debates are underutilized in PF and appreciate teams that use them (this does not mean you should frantically add a framework to your case before the round).

Presentation- Be persuasive. That means use persuasive examples, slow down on important points, and use rhetoric to your advantage. This doesn't mean I'm a fake tech I just want you to be really good at explaining your warrants. You will lose a lot of speaks if you doc bot the whole round. Read your good prep but you should be using your head in the backhalf to make strategic choices. Good analytics>bad cards every time.

Prog Stuff

Theory- Feel free to run theory. Please keep these debates organized. I want the shell extended but idc if its word for word. I am most familiar with disclosure and paraphrasing shells, but am fine evaluating anything as long as its not clearly frivolous. I strongly believe that teams should read a CI against shells, RVI's should only be reserved for extremely friv theory. Try to keep your shells below 250 WPM.

Biases: I don’t think disclosure is necessary but think most disclo rounds I judge go to the team that initiated the theory. Paraphrasing is bad, but I think debates about the norm are fun and I will not hack for it. Anything else I do not have strong feelings.

Topical K’s- Feel free to run these arguments. The most important thing for me is that you make the argument accessible to everyone in the round. If you are reading complicated cards with a lot of jargon, please spend the time to clarify arguments for me and your opponents. I do not like when teams use policy cards that don’t form coherent sentences. Do not skimp on extensions, every part of the K should be extended with proper warrants to win. Any ROTB is fine with me, but I appreciate it when debaters engage with each other on this issue. I am most familiar with Security, if you are reading anything else assume I know nothing. I will listen closely in cross but do not flow (if you ask me to I will). Try to not speak too fast, keep in mind that K literature is not my expertise.

Non-Topical K- See most of the “topical K section”, almost all of it applies here. Please justify why you are non-topical in the first speech. I don't like unrealistic alts- I think non-topical arguments are most valid when they remind us that things need to be changed in our world and would like to hear your best ideas on how to achieve that change. I am very receptive to vague alts bad arguments. Tbh the more I judge the less I worry about the norms that these arguments break. Have fun and do your thing.

Post round me if you want- I submit before I give my RFD though.