Tabroom.com

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2025 — Berkeley, CA/US

Varsity Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Emma Abbott Winston Churchill HS 2 rounds None

RAM ANNAMALAI Folsom High School 4 rounds None

Archana Balakrishnan Vista Del Lago High School

Mayank Bansal Dougherty Valley High School 1 rounds

Nomin Batbold Castro Valley High School 6 rounds

Mike Bausch Kent Denver School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 19, 2024 at 8:22 AM MST

Mike Bausch

Director of Speech and Debate, Kent Denver

Please include me in email chains; my email is mikebausch@gmail.com.

Thanks for letting me judge your debate. Do what you do best, and I will do my best to adapt to you all. Here are some tips for debating in a way that I find most persuasive:

1. Flow the debate and make complete arguments. I care about line-by-line debating and organization. An argument must have a claim, evidence, and an impact on the debate for me to vote on it. I must understand your reasoning enough to explain to the other team why I voted on it.

2. Be timely and efficient in the round. Nothing impresses me more than students who are prepared and organized. Please conduct the debate efficiently with little dead time. Don’t steal prep.

3. Focus on argument resolution after the first speeches. Impact calculus, developing specific warrants, identifying what to do with drops, answering “so what” questions, making “even if” statements, and comparing arguments (links, solvency, etc) are all great ways to win arguments, rather than just repeat them.

4. Feature judge instruction in the final rebuttals. The best tip I can give you is to go for less distinct issues as the debate develops and to focus on explaining and comparing your best points to your opponent’s arguments more. Begin your final rebuttal by writing my ballot and explicitly saying what you’re winning and why that should win you the debate.

5. Remember that this is a communication activity. Speak clearly, I do not follow along with the speech document and will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. My standard for clarity is that I should be able to write down the warrants from your evidence as you read it. Use your cross-examination time to persuade the judge and prepare for it like a speech.

6. Talk about your evidence more. I think a lot of teams get away with reading poor evidence. Please make evidence comparison (data, warrants, source, or recency) a significant part of the debate. Evidence that is highlighted in complete and coherent sentences is much more persuasive than evidence that is not.

7. Identify specific evidence that you want me read after the debate. I am more likely to read evidence that is discussed and explained during the debate and will use the debater's explanation to guide my reading. I am unlikely to read evidence that I didn't understand when it was initially presented, or to give much credit to warrants that only become clear to me after examining the evidence.

8. Develop your link arguments more. I think that the policy consequences and the ethical implications of the resolution are both important to consider when debating about the topic. For all strategies, it starts for me with the credibility of the link. Unpack the precise reasoning of your link evidence and use the specific language of your opponent’s case when applying your link arguments.

9. Compare your impacts early and often. Impact analysis and comparison is crucial to persuading me to vote for you. In depth explanation is great and even better if that includes clear comparisons to your opponent’s most significant impacts.

10. I prefer clash heavy instead of clash avoidant debates. I think the affirmative should present an advocacy they can defend as topical, and the negative should clash with ideas that the affirmative has committed to defending. I am most impressed by teams that demonstrate command of their arguments, who read arguments with strong specific links to the topic, and who come prepared to debate their opponent’s case. I am less impressed with teams that avoid clash by using multiple conditional advocacies, plan vagueness, generic positions without topic nuance, and reading incomplete arguments that lack clear links or solvency advocates.

*Note: Because evidence comparison is a valuable skill, I think all formats of debate benefit from evidence exchange between students in the debate and would prefer if students practiced this norm.

teresa benitez-thompson Reno High School 6 rounds

Rahul Bindlish Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Molly Bruins St Mary's 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:35 AM PST

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook 6 rounds

Ankit Chadha Folsom High School 4 rounds

Alexander Chang Gunn Sr High School 2 rounds

Alexander Chasun Saint Francis High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 11:34 PM PST

about me:

first year out
did pf for six years/competed under St Francis BC
I now do APDA at Stanford, but I'm very much a beginner at parli so please bear with me if I'm your judge for it.

email chain: alexchas@stanford.edu

**General**

Tech > Truth, but my barrier for overlooking your evidence that says that the moon is made of cheese is low if you don’t support it with well substantiated warranting when faced with a response or evidence challenge.

My view of a good strategy/performance is simple:

Warranting is your friend: whether you’re reading a turn, weighing, extending, or reading framework, warrant warrant warrant. Teams that read concise, well intentioned, and well substantiated warranting have never in my eyes been hurt by it.

But Alex if I warrant that aggressively I can’t read my blippy contentions, turns, and weighing anymore :(

Haha so true bestie, that’s the point

Towards the back half of the round, I want to see both teams collapse and weigh to make it clear to me what your narrative is, why I should vote for your case/link/turn specifically, and how it interacts with the round as a whole.
#1 also implies that speeches between partners will share a common vision and strategy, which definitely ain’t happening if your FF doesn’t mirror your Summary.
This is a preference but I prefer cohesive and nuanced cases over spamming multiple contentions with subpoints, because in my experience, #1 and #2 of my views of a good strategy don’t often happen with the latter.
This doesn’t happen in all rounds, but doing things like kicking case for turns (when done well) are quite impressive for me and fall under what I would deem “good performance”
If you plan on reading a framework, actually understand the literature behind each of your framework’s warrants and use that to your advantage to weigh against other arguments.

What I mean by good weighing:

Good weighing is not me voting for you because your number is bigger than theirs. It’s giving me an understanding why I should turn to your arguments first. That also implies that you will be comparing weighing mechanisms as well. Because telling me you win on one metric while the other team wins on another brings me back to square one, where I’m back to being forced to pick and choose based on what I personally think.

I’ll always look at weighing first, then any offense connected to that weighing, then all other offense (if there is no other weighing, which would make me sad)

Speed:

Speed is fine with me, and I’ll yell clear if I need to. But, note that as the months go by I’ll be less in tune with high school forensics, so it might be to your advantage to not go too crazy. (Crazy means speech doc levels)
Slow down for tags
I don’t like flowing off docs

Tiny rant about extinction framing:

This is not an excuse to avoid any meaningful weighing by simply reading your 100 trillion deaths card over and over again. Still weigh. Also actually read the lit behind your links because some cards I’ve seen have been so outrageous and not in the good way.

**Random Things**

Cross is binding. I won’t be flowing, but I’ll be paying attention so don’t pull anything morally ambiguous.

If you want me to read evidence, tell me to call for it. With that said, if it's irrelevant to the bigger picture of the debate, I won’t be reading it, and I’ll explain why in relation to the round in my rfd.

Postrounding is ok, I make mistakes. But note that my decision was also impacted by what has happened in the round, so ideally we could avoid this situation. If there was a game changing piece of weighing or delink that should’ve given you the win, you should’ve been making it clear in the backhalf.

**Prog**

Theory: I’ve run and debated against theory a decent number of times, and I’ve got to say it isn’t my favorite. Most rounds turn into the same thing over and over again with similar-ish standards that just end up going in favor of the team that has the most experience with theory to begin with. It’s also frankly quite clear that a majority of teams that run theory don’t do it for the sake of “spreading norms” or “prioritizing education,” rather they see it as a way to pick up rounds, so forgive me if my eyes roll to the back of my skull.

In addition, the notion that theory checks back against ad hominem, in-round abuse is absurd. If someone says something problematic and offensive about me in a round, the last thing I’m thinking about is how to format their violation into a shell and taking prep time to prepare an off for my next speech.

With that said, if you feel uncomfortable in the round, don’t hesitate to email me with my email above, and I will stop the round.

No Friv theory

Kritiks: I only ran two kritiks (neo-colonialism/intersectional queer futurity) in my time debating, and although they were quite fun to learn about and read, I will be the first to acknowledge that I barely knew what I was doing. I know about kritiks in concept and understand their function and format, but in practice, the lines become blurred for me. With that said, I find that critical literature raises a lot of interesting questions, especially if they discuss a cause you are particularly passionate about, so be my guest if you want to run it, I’d love to engage with you on the subject matter, just note that I might not evaluate the round as formally as someone proficient on the matter.

Sangeeta chaturvedi Emerald High School 4 rounds

Bo Chen Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Dongni Chen Saratoga HS 2 rounds

Daniel Choi Mountain House High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 17, 2024 at 2:55 AM PST

flintridge prep '23, uc berkeley '27

i debated under flintridge prep cy (or yc) and did ok

put me on the email chain: danielchoi758@berkeley.edu

parli

-yea j read whatever idc

tldr (pf)

send speech docs before speech whenever u read new cards
weigh
extend
run whatever u want

general (this is all pf specific)

tech > truth
frontline in 2nd rebuttal
extend everything ur going for in summary
collapse
if it's not in summary it can't be in final focus; unless it's new weighing in first final or responding to the new stuff brought up in first final
post rounding is fine idc

things i like

weighing (not the bs prewritten weighing u can say for any round but the comparative prereq, short circuit, etc that requires a little more thinking)
actual clash
speed if you articulate well
speech docs before your speech
not misrepresenting evidence
tricks
staying within the time of your speech
dr. pepper

things to know

PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME JUDGE EVERY 10 SECONDS
if evidence is disputed throughout the round then i will call for it.
i will not time anyone so if ur opponents go over time then hold up ur stopwatch (do not use a timer that rings because it's rude and obnoxious. if u see that i'm flowing even though time is up over 10 seconds, knock on the table a couple times so i look at u with ur timer up)
it's a debate so you can run any argument you want as long as you defend it better than ur opponents' responses against it
slow ev exchanges r my least favorite parts of debates so make it quick, preferably just rly quickly send cut cards before speech. also taking over 30 seconds to find a card is so sus
dont ask every single person in the round individually if they're ready
i know time starts on ur first word or in 3, 2, 1; just give ur speech

how i evaluate rounds

i see who's winning the weighing
if you are winning the weighing, i look to your case and see if your winning your case. if you are, then congrats, you won the round
if you are not winning your case then your weighing doesn't matter so i look to see if your opponents are winning their case. if they are, then they win.
if neither side weighs but both are winning their cases, then i will break the tie by calling for your evidence to see which sides' is better
if both sides have equally good/bad evidence, i will presume neg

El Contreras L C Anderson High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 25, 2024 at 11:22 AM CST

Judge, Judge Contreras, or just Contreras are fine

pronouns: they/them/theirs (don't call me miss/ma'am)

Head Coach at LC Anderson HS in Texas

Email chain: theedebatecoach@gmail.com and docs.andersondebate@gmail.com please<3

Order:

General Comments
PF
LD
Congress

General Comments

Trigger warnings are a norm you should be taking part in. Allowing competitors the chance to opt out is not only encouraged but extremely important for making this activity safe. This is true for every event but more true for some- DI, looking at you!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. I have a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!!

Respect and safety are crucial to speech and debate. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, transphobia, or any other kind of discrimination in or outside of round. If another competitor or participant is making you feel unsafe, you can always bring it to me. That behavior in round will be reflected in your speaks and on the ballot.

I love novices, I love fundamentals of debate. I will answer any questions after round to the best of my ability if we are respectful and wanting to learn. That also means do NOT dunk on novices in front of me. Reading 6 off on a novice might win you the ballot but I will tank your speaks.

I don’t disclose speaks.

Number responses!! the art of a clean flow/speech seems to be lost or at least elusive.

Broke: is anyone not ready?

Woke: Is everyone ready?

2. Public Forum

I’m fully flay. While I will evaluate most things, a K in PF is an uphill battle. I’m used to LD-style K’s and they have the advantage of longer speech times that PF doesn’t have. My flowing is strong, if I miss an argument it’s because it’s blippy. I don’t use the doc in PF because you should not be going fast enough to necessitate that.

My least favorite trend in PF right now is the way cards are cut. Please include at least a paragraph of context. Your tagline should be an actual claim! “Furthermore” “concerningly” “luckily” are NOT taglines. This is bad evidence ethics and if it comes down to a card v. Card debate, yours will lose.

My second least favorite trend is insufficient extensions.

Extensions mean: tag/author and warranting. You don’t need to reread the card, you DO need to restate the claim and warrant.

I like theory. TFA rules allow tournaments to decide if judges can vote on disclosure. If allowed by tournament hosts, I will evaluate it.

3. Lincoln Douglas

I’m much more lay in LD. I will use the doc to flow but only if I’m in outrounds on a tech panel. In prelims, you should adapt. Many debaters believe they can spread, few debaters can achieve those speeds with clarity. Lay appeal is important, persuasiveness is important, style is important. If I’m your judge, that’s a great opportunity to improve upon those skills! I will reward adaptation with high speaks.

I like stock/policy arguments, theory/T, counterplans and am most comfortable with these arguments. I love framework debate.

Ks are really interesting to me, you will need to do more judge instruction and comparative to win on one but I will absolutely vote on the Kritik.

4. Congress

I love judging congress and don’t get to do it often. I listen just as much to content as I do to presentation and both factor into your rank. I appreciate a full buy-in to the congress LARPing (AGDs about your interns and time on the floor) and tend to prefer those to personal anecdotes. Intros are important, they need to be relevant to the topic, concise, cleanly delivered (ideally memorized) and impactful.

2 points, 2-3 sources per point.

Clash!!! It’s called congressional debate for a reason!

Good questions are everything!

Micah Cook Taipei American School 4 rounds

Marius Corbu Evergreen Valley 2 rounds

Marc DeJager Valley Christian High School 6 rounds None

Nethra Dhamodaran Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Vu Doan Brooks Debate Institute 6 rounds

Katheryne Dwyer Taipei American School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 10:16 PM EST

hey! i'm katheryne. 3yo, debated nat circ pf for 3 years, coaching + judging since. now junior at uchicago, assistant coach at taipei american school, and lead coach at national debate club. if i'm judging in person you can assume i've done topic prep.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com and katheryne@cdadebate.com to the chain.

tl;dr: good judge for substance, pretty good judge for k, mid judge for theory, bad judge for anything else. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way. debate is competitive but be kind. i change my paradigm a lot, please ask me questions if you have them.

if you have a question about whether i will like evaluating an argument simply ask me

** what can i go for in front of you?

substance: 1
k neg (k w/ topic link): 2
soft left: 3
theory: 3
k aff (non-t k): 3/4
IVI: 4/5
tricks: strike

in divisions rather than varsity ask permission from your opponents before reading anything but substance, if you don't i'll be super sympathetic to "what even is this/i can't respond to this"

** substance/general (applies to all types of arguments!):

1.pretty standard tech judge. i start with weighing to determine highest level of offense, then determine best link in.

2. i love good defense, but you gotta implicate it properly for me to care. a defensive argument can either be terminal (if you implicate D as terminal, i will eval it as such), or it can be mitigatory. unimplicated defense is automatically mitigatory. mitigatory defense should be implicated as weighing. feel free to ask qs about this if you have them.

3. carded + warranted > warranted analytic w/ no card > carded claim w/ no warrant. i love smart analytics.

4. warrants are very important to me. every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need warrants in link ext to be properly extended.

5. extensions of all types are important to me. if your extension has no internal link or no impact is extended i will notice. i do not generally autodrop in an otherwise competitive round for crappy extensions, but i will do so if the opponents point them out. consistency in the backhalf is important to me. if your responses are shifty between summary and FF, they may as well not exist on my flow and my decision will reflect that even if the opponents don't call it out. this includes changing the warrant under the same cardname.

6. respond to args in next speech, nothing is sticky.

7. all competing claims must be compared in some manner or i will, by definition, either have to intervene or ignore them. this means: competing pieces of evidence, links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc.

8. i like less, better developed and implicated arguments than a bunch of spammed poorly implicated ones. narrative is a good skill no matter what level you're debating at. EDIT: i have judged a lot of rounds recently where there is a noticeable tradeoff between how much offense teams go for and how well it's won. it is easier to win my ballot by going for no more than two offensive arguments in the FF and winning them well.

9. if no offense i presume neg. if a ton of floating offense is won and isn't compared, i will try as best i can to resolve the round without intervening, and presume neg if there is truly no way.

10. speed is fine, i have never met a PF round i could not flow if there 1. are docs 2. is clarity and 3. is signposting. i will clear you once, past that you're on your own. if you are not a clear speaker, you need to slow down in front of me.

11. i won't auto-drop on evidence ethics violations if i notice them without you telling me to. this is intervention. in egregious cases i'll tank speaks. there are levels of evidence problems. if you just want me to cross something off of my flow, tell me to read it + cross it off. if there’s a serious and persistent power tagging/misrepresentation problem, that’s a voting issue, give me warrants why & i will likely vote on it. formal challenges are a waste of a debate, but of course i will evaluate them if levied.opportunistically levied challenges pmo. if there’s a challenge, and your intention is to call it, do it immediately after abuse.

12. i don't mind if you postround, i take a long time to make decisions because i write long RFDs and think about each part of the round before voting (even if the decision is very simple i'll write about each argument extended through FF on my ballot). but i am also human and my tolerance for disrespect is low, so be polite.

** theory:

i am so bored of judging disclosure debates. i get that sometimes it’s the best path to the ballot and i can’t fault you for it, but your speaks are capped at 28 if you read disclo in front of me in prelims. elims - do what you will for the panel.

1. flexible preferences: default CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. less flexible preferences: theory immediately after abuse, prefer shell format to paragraph, text over spirit of interp, won't vote on out of round abuse, won't vote on ad homs, much more hesitant to vote on out of round impacts than in round impacts.

2. pf theory debates are complicated by the fact that none of us agree on what the above words mean. to me: RVIs do not apply to arguments which garner independent offense. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. which means that i will vote on an OCI even if no RVIs is won but i will not vote on a defensive CI if no RVIs is won.if your CI is an OCI, tell me. if you think their CI is a DCI, tell me.

3. i am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately "idk how to deal w/ theory" isn't a workable response in varsity tournaments. i will give a long RFD explaining what happened and how you could have responded, but i won't ever down a varsity team for reading theory on face.

4. layering arguments are crucial when there are several offs. even when there is only one off, i need the DTD + theory uplayers weighing extended through final to vote on it.

5. unverifiable claims like “our coach doesn’t let us meet the interp” are very difficult for me to vote on. you either need to produce evidence in some manner, or find a different way to engage.

6. the "jargon as extension of implied warrant" problem in pf is especially bad in theory debates, which is probably why i dislike them so much. the two words "norm setting" in the ff are not enough to justify a ballot for me, do more.

7. my personal leanings: OS disclosure is good, i care very little about the rest of these random disclosure interps. paraphrasing is bad, hard to defend as an academic practice. i cannot be bothered to pretend i care about author quals. that being said i think there's very little relationship between what i personally care about and will vote for in a debate round,there is no interp i will on face hack against/i think for me to deem certain interpretations "frivolous" based on my personal opinions would be arbitrary & interventionist.

** k neg (w/ topic link):

when done well, these are some of my favorite debates and i will defend their educational value (yes, even in PF) to the grave. when done poorly, these are hands down my least favorite debates. do not assume i will hack for a poorly read K, or give you good speaks.

1. i prefer really specific link debates. omission, for example, is not a good link. vague gestures at their model/narrative/manner of thinking are not good links. often, the problem is not the argument itself, just the lack of specificity.

2. the difficulty with alts in PF is the biggest incompatibility between the argument and format. some alts are just straight up CPs, i am sympathetic to procedural arguments about that not being allowed, i am open to defenses of that practice as well. i am warming up on reject alts if the rest of your advocacy is very specific, and there's good cohesion between rejection and your framing. i am personally skeptical of discourse shapes reality arguments but will of course vote for them if they are won.

3. i am open to basically any way to see my ballot (prioritization of X, worlds comparison, some obligation as an educator/judge, etc) i am equally open to the idea that asking me to use my ballot in certain ways probably opens up ground for T arguments. that being said, my inclination is against deleting 4 minutes of aff (first speaking) ground, i want to weigh the case, i am easily persuaded by arguments that tell me to do so. winning K turns case = easiest way to my ballot w/ the K.

4. going for framework, DAs on alt solvency, link D, and perms is the most impressive method of engagement to me in pf. doing this well is usually a 30 and the W.

5. do not read a paraphrased k in front of me. disclose the k.

** k aff (non-t):

i understand these arguments probably above average amongst pf tech judges, and have a lot of experience reading and judging them, but i honestly don't like them very much. that being said i'll eval anything and vote for anything that's won.

1. you need to be really convincing about why it is educational not to debate the topic, i think T decently read is quite convincing. i do not think T is violent but i'll eval it. won't hack for T, will vote for k aff if T is beat, but if T is competently defended i generally think it is convincing.

2. need good explanation of importance of the ballot. will not vote on these args if i do not understand why i am meant to do so.

3. if you're hitting a K aff, do something better than "but this is PF." i vote for T and cap against k affs easily. do that instead. creative methods of engagement are also great, but i really will just vote for T.

4. i generally do not think identity positions are immune from disclosure arguments. i understand arguments about outing and will flow them. but i am easily convinced that disclosure is still important. obviously evidence and paraphrasing norms are dependent on the style/type of evidence used, use best practices and be ready to defend them.

Derek Eggleston Archbishop Mitty 4 rounds

My background is I used to do competitive Parli debate in High School. I am new to judging debate. I flow rounds as best I can and vote on the flow/argument above all else (though you should always strive to have a strong speaking presentation that clearly communicates said arguments).

I believe there is a reason there are multiple debate events. Each event has skills they prioritize and a good debate includes students striving to deepen and hone the skills that enable success for that particular event. As a result, I think it is unfortunate when Parli debates try to pretend they are "Policy-lite" debates. If you have a well-placed K that is closely linked to the topic, feel free to run it. However, I think something is lost when you have Parli debates that devolve into teams spreading tangentially (at best) related K's, theory, etc. without engaging in the central tension presented by the resolution's wording. This is what I mean when I say "policy-lite". It is my opinion that Parli is centrally concerned with being able to think quickly when presented with a resolution you've not debated before and form persuasive and logical arguments. Persuasive and logical argumentsabout that topic.

Kudos to anyone who treats Parli as a unique event in its own right with its own standards, conventions and lingo (it's the Government and the Opposition, not aff and neg! the Prime Minister's Constructive, not the 1AC!)

Some speed is fine but if you fully spread, I will likely not be able to keep up with 100% of what is said in my flow.

While I vote on the flow and remain open to pretty much any argumentation, I am not 100% "tabula rasa." That is to say treat me as a reasonably informed average person you might randomly meet on the street. If you make an argument that is flatly wrong or would, on face value, strike a reasonable person to be seriously flawed, I will treat it as such. While I won't do any work for your opponents and they must address it, in my eyes they have very little work to do in order to counter such an argument.

Ahmad Elassaad College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:11 PM PST

GBX Update:gbx is my first tournament on the topic, don't assume any topic knowledge

hi im ahmad, 4 year pf debater for college prep er. for the chain: add BOTH aselassaad@ucdavis.edu and collegepreppf@gmail.com please

quals: did some stuff won some stuff

if ur a novice: skim the substance part of my paradigm but stick to this: speak clearly and at your own speed. line-by-line in first rebuttal, frontline and line-by-line in second rebuttal, collapse and weigh well in summary and and final focus. make sound arguments and make it clear what i should vote on. most importantly have fun!

tldr: tech>>>>>>truth. i prefer substance rounds. weigh, warrant, and speak as fast as u want. extend args with warrants, links, and impacts through summary and ff. weigh links and turns and pretty much everything else. i'm willing to vote off of anything (i mean anything) as long as ur winning it, just don't be offensive or discriminatory.

lim as tech→∞ (1/tech) = truth

things to know:

ALL EV SENT SHOULD BE CUT CARDS

im cool with tag-team cross, flex prep, skipping grand, and pretty much anything as long as both teams agree. i give high speaks so just debate ur debate.

im good with speed but if ur reading 1000+ words in case or rebuttal a speech doc should be sent to everyone before speech. dont read more than u can handle, reading 3 good contentions is better than reading 5 bad ones where u didnt even get to the impact on c5.

calling for cards takes way too long and delays debates, so speech docs should be sent anyway.

send marked docs

i prefer winning debates > educational debates

prep time or no time.

substance:

i vote off the flow in this order (for substance rounds): meta-weighing>weighing>offense. please please make sure you have offense in the round, I dont know how many times ive seen neither team extend any offense and that makes my job much harder which makes it harder for u to get my vote.

extending internal links and impacts are a MUST, but my threshold for extensions is pretty low. as long as u say the internal link and impact i consider it extended. this also applies for the rest of the uq/link-chain.

impact defense is lowk underrated and under-used, some of these impact scenarios r getting a little ridiculous. many teams read crazy nuke prolif and first strike scenarios that other teams just take for granted and let slide. if a team just calls them out on it and tells me that their impact is ridiculous for x and y (doesnt need to be carded) that makes the job of the impact reading team much harder.

impact out ur turns! if u read a turn on an arg that the opponents r going for, u can just say smth like "we access their impact of xy". if ur going for a turn on a dropped arg, u need to extend the impact of the contention since the opponents presumably aren't extending it anymore.

please interact with the args on the flow, extending responses thru ink might as well be a waste of ur time. that being said, defense is somewhat sticky.

weighing:

i was an extinction first debater, but i will vote on any sv or extinction framing. the thing abt sv framing that many miss is that its rly easy for a team reading an extinction impact to link in to the sv framing, so the sv team has to explain why even evaluating the impact of the other side bites the link into ur framing.

probability over magnitude needs to be well warranted, please dont just say "prefer high probability impacts over low ones" or else ill be left asking why. the default is bigger impacts o/w smaller impacts, which is why i default extinction o/w.

carded weighing is fire.

prereqs save lives

theory:

default no RVIs and competing interps (and drop the debater). shells should be read in the speech directly after the violation happened. friv theory is wtv, do what u need to do to win, but my threshold for everything from extensions to weighing will be higher. text>spirit.

i default disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, rr good, os>full text.

K's:

im gonna be slower here, treat me like a flay and read at your own risk.

for nontopical Ks, i might as well be a flay judge that pretends to understand whats going but really doesnt.

tricks:

tricks r very fun, but u should know what ur doing. eval after 1ac is a stretch but im still willing. my rule is that all tricks must be in the speech doc.

phil/high theory:

read non-t K's above. run at ur own risk, but im very interested in this stuff so who knows

good luck and have fun! :)

cool individuals:

my favorite judges r gabe rusk, andy stubbs, kate zellig, les phillips, charlie synn, eli glickman, and william pirone.

CREW

My views align with Arnav Ratna.

this guy is kinda based

happy birthday TQ

Eli Glickman College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 5:54 PM EST

I am a fourth year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegepreppf@gmail.com to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks. At the Barkley Forum tournament, I will treat a TKO as an argument, and I will therefore not end the round immediately.

Shailendra Grover Northwood High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 29, 2024 at 2:21 AM PST

I am a parent judge and may not flow. I have never judged speech. I enjoy all logical and creative arguments. I am claiming no expertise in debates or speech; however, as long as you have solid explanations of your arguments, I should be able to follow them.

You are here to convince me with your excellent research and debate skills! I am more impressed with debaters who apply certain public speaking skills and who can express their arguments with logic, confidence, and clarity. If you follow all debate rules and technicalities, you are in good shape; I'll certainly let you know if you cross the lines.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts, but here are my answers to some issues you may have.

· Speed___I'd prefer moderate speaking speed and slow-down for facts, authors, and taglines. I'll try to follow, but I do not guarantee that I will catch everything being said. Make sure you don't sacrifice clarity for speed.

· Arguments___I'm all ears for any types of arguments -- traditional, progressive, or anything in between -- as long as they are not morally offensive. Just make sure you articulate your arguments with logic, evidence, claims, and impacts.

· Speaker Points___I adjudicate speaks based on your delivery and in round behavior.

· Others___I'm big on organization throughout the speech, including roadmaps and signposts. If I don't know where to put your arguments, I'm probably not going to flow it.

·Cards and evidence___If I am not sure or confused about certain pieces of evidence or facts, I will call to see the cards at the end of the round. If you bring up information that is false without evidence to back it up, even if the opposing team does not call you out, I will hold that against you.

· Calling Cards___Don't take too long when asked to bring up cards. I will hold that against you and it will impact your speaker scores.

· Advice?

1. Remember that this is an educational and friendly competition.

2. Debate in the style you feel most comfortable. Don't be bogged down by debate jargon or styles that your opponents use.

3. Tell me at the end why I should vote for you. Especially in Final Focus. Don't make me weigh the impacts and do the work, make sure you are weighing and being explicit.

4. Although using logic to support is great, try your best to have quantifiable impacts.

Aidan Guckenberger Carlsbad High School 6 rounds

Chris Harris CK McClatchy High School 6 rounds None

Wilson He Fairview HS 6 rounds

Jaime Holguin Gig Harbor 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 3:59 AM PST

Experience: 2 years of policy debate, 15 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

*I believe systems of apartheid are unjustifiable because they do harm to the ethnic group that is not given full privileges in that society or government nothing you say will move me on that, saying we need to end Affirmative Action or other DEI things you lost me, you say racist/homophobic/anti trans rhetoric I will not only vote you down but request tab disqualify you for the rest of the tournament.

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech. If out of the constructive I don't understand how you access your offense of your contentions you need to rewrite or start over with your cases.

Fiona Hu Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 7:39 PM EST

general

tldr: run any argument you want as long as it is warranted and implicated well. i won't vote on explicitly exclusionary arguments. i am fine with speed.

i debated for cary academy in pf for 4 years and got 12 toc bids.

add: jfh2163@columbia.edu

types of arguments

policy

extend link chains and impacts. i can not weigh the round if i have no impacts and no warranting for impacts. also, have an internal link into your impact---saying a pandemic will cause extinction with no warrant why will not make me happy.

evidence clash is excessive in pf. please just weigh or give warranting on which piece of evidence is better. i don't want to intervene and decide what piece of evidence is better, so do it for me or you might be unhappy with your result.

if there is no offense in the round, i presume neg.

i really prefer you line by line everything, if you have an overview tell me where to flow it.

even though i've read Ks throughout high school, i won't hack for Ks. i'm perfectly fine with voting off of t, extinction outweighs, or anything else that's won on the flow.

if you are reading a k, explain your theory of power well and make implications of why it matters.

hot take, i don't hate discursive alts. i think that especially if pf teams can utilize foucault's theory of how rhetoric, language, and discourse shape pernicious hierarchies that could open up for more interesting debates.

theory

i default to competing interps, no rvis, dtd.

rvis need warrants. if they don't have warrants, they are going to lose.

i'm not a fan of tw theory, i think it's used as a cop-out to not talk about non-graphic social issues. that being said, i won't hack against it.

i also am not a fan of spreading theory. i think it’s a bad shell with no bright line. run it if you want—if you win on the flow i’ll vote for it.

disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. again, i won't hack for either disclosure or paraphrasing theory.

phil

i am currently a philosophy major so i can understand some phil. i have read kant, hume, plato, honneth, and understand the literature. that being said, i will not use my prior knowledge to fill in the blanks for you.

tricks

i have never debated tricks before but learned some stuff from sachin aggarwal and my old teammates derek han and riley ro.

so i am still learning! if you explain it well i'll catch on (aka probably slow down and warrant it more than a normal judge).

Sabrina Huang College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 8:40 AM PST

important: please do not read arguments pertaining to child porn/anything that terminalize to sexual violence in front of me. human trafficking with a non sv ! is okay. by that, i mean don't dehighlight the cards and replace sexual violence with gendered violence. i cannot hear these arguments. read an alternate.

add me to the email chain - 19sabrina.huang@gmail.com

i debated under cps hp. currently i coach/judge for american heritage broward. i don't think i'm super picky but heres some basic stuff:

first and foremost, i prioritize the safety of debaters. that means: don't trigger people, use correct pronouns, etc.

you have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc. you must delete the cards you did not read and visibly mark cards that you did not complete reading.

asking qs for clarification/feedback is fine. postrounding bc u think u won and ur tryna convince me u shoulda is not. just try to keep it short - i will cut you off at a certain point

dont be a jerk. it's fine to be witty, but if you're being rude your speaks will get tanked. my bar for being a jerk is pretty high tho

generally please dont yell that much, calm down it aint that deep ???? just be calm and normal please

that also means i wont evaluate any arguments rooted in bigotry. i will also not evaluate death good. be mature, and good people. also idt u can run pess if both of u arent black. i cannot believe i have to say this, but dont

dont be sexist.

send all cards before speeches so we reduce prep steal. i do not want evidence sharing to take up 16 minutes of a round (i have seen this happen irl) please spare me

i always presume neg on cx and almost always on pf - but if it's on balance res, i'll presume first bc first summary is hard

we can skip grand if both teams want to idrc about it tbh

if both teams want a lay round thats fine j lmk

on evidence:

i wont drop u if i notice an egregious evidence ethics violation myself but i will do smth if other team points it out/asks me to call for the card at the end of the rd. i will point it out and tank speaks if it is not against official rules usually (unless its rly bad, case by case basis) but if it is against NSDA rules i will auto drop

generally - i dont like para bc i have to comb through ALL ur ev. if you do not know what para means, ask.

try to fr tag your cards. "specifically," is not a tag. tags are full sentences

i think bracketing can be a slippery slope - id rather u read something that sounds grammatically weird out loud than bracket, bc if you bracket a lot i have to check all ur ev for misconstruction and i dont want to do that.

if you notice clipping and u want to pursue it dont just read a shell - again, it's against nsda rules and needs to be evaluated per the handbook. just stop the round. it would be helpful if you have a recording of the clipping too.

speaks

do not read theory on novices unless you want your speaks tanked, you will win the round but you'll probably get like 24

20 = you did something racist/sexist etc and i'm gonna call tab

24 = minimum baseline for explicit, egregious evidence ethics violations or u were a big jerk

27-27.5 = you did smth horrible (debate wise)

27.6-27.9 = decent amount of stuff to work on

28-28.2 = you're getting there

28.3-28.5 = avg

28.6-28.9 = nice

29-29.3 = good. you might break to elims

29.4-29.7 = i think you should be top speaker

29.8-30 = ur better than me congrats

you start at a 25 if i notice ev that is explicitly against nsda rules - this is not just creative highlighting, this is stuff like added ellipses

+.3 for OS disclo

+.1 round reports

-0.5 for improperly cut cards (no context, no citation, no highlighting, etc)

-1 para or bracketing (-2 if u have both bc addition)

-1 if u have no cards and u j send me a link

also,

defense is not sticky

frontline everything in second rebuttal. do not be blippy and say "group responses 2-5 no warrant" and then move on. ACTUALLY WARRANT EVERYTHING OUT. if you are blippy, i will be very lenient towards the other teams responses.

analytics r cool if u have warrants. no warrant isnt a warrant

i dont think theres an inherent problem with theory, but theres this trend where teams make hella responses and nobody collapses and it makes the round super messy so that makes me pissed like i dont think we have time to cover every single possible voting issue in 2 mins yk what i mean

anyways if it's frivolous i'll probably give u the stink eye. u can read friv if u reallyyyyy want but depending on how funny/boring it is ill get upset/be less upset. RVIs are silly, i prob won't vote on no RVIs. i don't think you should lose for trying to be fair.

call me interventionist but i think disclo is good and para is bad and i dont see myself voting on the opposite. sorry

i think ks are generally educational and i know how to judge them but i genuinely believe they don't belong in pf j bc the timings weird. if you read one, i won't immediately vote you down. either way aff gets to perm the k. also read an alt. and actual fw. do this well and u wont make me upset

CPs are fine on fiat resolutions (usfg should __) but idrk how this would work on an on balance res. but since these are technically not allowed per nsda rules i will also evaluate CP bad theory or whatever arg u can come up with

no tricks please i dont think i can evaluate them well and ill probs drop you bc idk how they work - run them in front of someone else

go as fast as u want as long as you enunciate. i will yell clear 3x before i stop flowing, dont make me do this

signpost. if you want to spread, you must slow down on tags/cites and then you may speed up on the body of the card. then, when you move onto another contention/card, let me know in some way. pause. say and. i dont care as long as u do smth

stop extending everything through ink, makes the debate really hard to eval and leads to intervention

no new weighing in 2ff. new 1ff weighing will make me upset but idt its the end of the world.

also, time yourselves. if u go too overtime in a speech/start new sentences i will straight up stop flowing

in general, i would rather have a slower round with more warrants than a faster paced round where everything is blippy and messy. make my job easy. do not make me sigh when i am making a decision bc i have to choose between a bunch of unwarranted weighing mechanisms extended through ink. most of you all are trying to be too techy because you think that gives you clout. in order to be techy, you need to know how to debate, otherwise a fast and unwarranted round just leaves me unimpressed, frustrated, and you will not get much out of the round. if u are techy and u do it well thats fine - there is most certainly a difference between a messy good tech round and a messy bad one.

ld:

i have very limited knowledge about this event. explain what jargon is because chances are its different from cx or pf. please please please signpost

if u have any qs ask me before the round and i will try to answer accordingly

phil: prob not

nibs: ?? no

tricks: no

speed: fine

larp: fine

k: fine

theory: fine

BE CLEAR. I WILL YELL CLEAR TWICE BEFORE I STOP FLOWING.

Krishi Jaladi Amador Valley Independent 6 rounds None

Sky Juinio The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 7:50 AM PST

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email. add spjuinio@gmail.com and nuevadocs@gmail.com to the chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. to win my ballot, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. only use jargon if you know how. extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful. generally, judge instructions will help you and me. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. speeches get a 15-second grace period, though you should try to finish punctually. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. i also accept emails and other online messages. i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or the next round is expedited.

now, specifics!

topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse for being lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. additionally, i don't like to (and tend not to) evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. you should read carded links and impacts minimum. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Roma Kapoor Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Simpreet Kaur Emerald High School 4 rounds None

Xavier Liu Bellarmine College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:20 AM PST

Hi y'all! I am a former speech and debater for Bellarmine College Preparatory in the Coast Forensics League. I have finished my undergrad at UC Berkeley, studying Political Science and Philosophy. Although I have done speech for a majority of my four years competing in high school, I have done a year of slow Policy Debate and was a Parliamentary Debater during my senior year of high school. I am now an Interp coach at Bellarmine College Prep and a Parliamentary/Public Forum Debate and Extemp Coach at The Nueva School. These past few years, I have been running Tabrooms at Tournaments as compared to judging. And even if I have been judging, I am almost always in the Speech and Congress judging pool.

The tl;dr: Be clear, concise, and kind during debate. I will listen to and vote on anything GIVEN that I understand it and it's on my flow. Spread and run arguments at your own risk. Evidence and analysis are a must, clash and weigh - treat me as a flay (flow + lay) judge.

If you want more precise information, read the event that you are competing in AND the "Overall Debate Stuff" if you are competing in a Debate.

Table of Contents for this paradigm:

1. Policy Debate

2. Parliamentary Debate

3. Public Forum Debate

4. Lincoln Douglas Debate

5. Overall Debate Stuff (Speed, Theory, K's, Extending Dropped Arguments, etc.)

6. IE's (Because I'm extra!) (Updated on 01/2/2024!)

7. Congress

For POLICY DEBATE:

I feel like I'm more policymaker oriented, although I started learning about Policy Debate from a stock issues lens, and am more than comfortable defaulting to stock issues if that's what y'all prefer. I'm really trying to see whether the plan is a good idea and something that should be passed. Offensive arguments and weighing are key to winning the debate for me. For example, even if the Neg proves to me that the plan triggers a disadvantage and a life threatening impact, if the Aff is able to minimize the impact or explain how the impact pales in comparison to the advantages the plan actually offers, I'd still feel comfortable voting Aff. If asked to evaluate the debate via stock issues, the Neg merely needs to win one stock issue to win the debate.

Evidence and analysis are absolutely crucial, and good analysis can beat bad evidence any day! Evidence and link turns are also great, but make sure that you are absolutely CLEAR about what you are arguing and incredibly explanatory about how this piece of evidence actually supports your argument.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Topicality - Yeah, it's a voting issue. It's the Negative's burden to explain the Affirmative's violation and to provide specific interpretations that the Affirmative needs to adhere to. Further, if T is run, I must evaluate whether the plan is Topical BEFORE I evaluate the rest of the debate.

For Theory, Ks, etc. see the "Overall Debate Stuff" below.

I'm not too up on most arguments on this year's topic, so again, arguments need to be explained clearly and efficiently.

For PARLI DEBATE:

In Parli, I will judge the debate first in terms of the stronger arguments brought up on each side through the framework provided and debated by the AFF (PROP) and the NEG (OPP). If you win framework, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such. If it's a Policy resolution round, I tend to judge by stock issue and DA's/Ad's (see the above Policy Debate paradigm). If a fact or value resolution round, I tend to judge through framework first before evaluating any arguments that come afterwards.

Similar to Policy, by the end of the 1 NR, I should know exactly what arguments you are going for. Voting issues in each of the rebuttals are a MUST! Crystallize the round for me and tell me exactly what I will be voting on at the end of the debate.

In regards to POO's, I do not protect the flow. It is up to YOU to POO your opponents. New arguments that are not POO'd may be factored into my decision if not properly POO'd. POO's should not be abused. Be clear to give me what exactly what the new argument/impact/evidence/etc. is.

I expect everyone to take at least 1-2 POI(s) throughout their speeches. Anything short is low key just rude, especially if your opponent gives you the opportunity to ask questions in their speech. Anything more is a time suck for you. Be strategic and timely about when and how you answer the question.

For PF:

I strongly believe that PF should remain an accessible type of debate for ALL judges. While I do understand and am well versed in more faster/progressive style debate, I would prefer if you slowed down and really took the time to speak to me and not at me. Similar to Policy and Parli, I want arguments to be clearly warranted and substantiated with ample evidence. As the below section explains, I'd much rather have fewer, but more well developed arguments instead of you trying to pack the flow with 10+ arguments that are flaky and unsubstantiated at best.

For PF, I will side to using an Offense/Defense paradigm. I'm really looking for Offense on why your argument matters and really want you to weigh your case against your opponents'. Whoever wins the most arguments at the end of the round may not necessarily win the round, since I think weighing impacts and arguments matters more. Please make sure that you really impact out arguments and really give me a standard or framework to weigh your arguments on! So for example, even if the Pro team wins 3 out of 4 arguments, if the Con is able to show that the one argument that they win clearly outweighs the arguments from the Pro, I may still pick up the Con team on the ballot. WEIGH , WEIGH, WEIGH. I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH! Really explain why your impacts and case connect with your framework. Similar to LD, if both teams agree on framework, I'd rather you focus on case debate or add an impact rather than focus on the framework debate. Though if both teams have different frameworks, give me reasons and explain why I should prefer yours over your opponents'.

The second rebuttal should both focus on responding to your opponents' refutations against your own case AND should refute your opponents' case. If you bring up dropped arguments that are not extended throughout the debate in the Final Focus speeches, I will drop those specific arguments. If it's in the Final Focus, it should be in the Final Summary, and if it's in the Final Summary, it should be in Rebuttal. I will consider an argument dropped if it is not responded to by you or your teammate after the rebuttal speeches. For more information regarding extensions, please look at the "Overall Debate Stuff" section of this paradigm.

Please use the Final Focus as a weighing mechanism of why YOUR team wins the round. I'd prefer it to be mainly summarizing your side's points and really bringing the debate to a close.

Most of all, be kind during crossfire.

For Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Similar to PF, while I did not compete in LD, I have judged a few rounds and understand the basics of this debate. I am more old-school in that I believe that LD is something that focuses more on arguing about the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The Affirmative does not need to argue for a specific plan, rather, just needs to defend the resolution. However, I have judged a handful of fast rounds in LD and do understand more progressive argumentation from Policy Debate. I have also judged policy/plan centered LD rounds.

So there's framework debate and then we get to the main meat with contentions. With the framework debate, I'm open to essentially any Value or V/C that you want to use. If you and your opponent's Value and V/C are different, please provide me reasons why I should prefer your Value and V/C over your opponents. Weigh them against each other and explain to me why you should prefer yours over your opponent's. Please also tie your contentions that you have in the main meat of your speeches back to your Value and V/C. For example (using the anonymous sources resolution from 2018-2019), if you're Neg and your Value is democracy and your V/C is transparency because the more transparent news organizations are the more accountable they can be, your contentions should show me that in the your world, we maximize transparency, which allows for the best democracy. The best cases are ones which are able to link the Value and V/C seamlessly into their contentions.

If you win the framework debate, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such.

If you and your opponent agree with V/C and V, move on. Don't spend extra time on stuff that you can spend elsewhere. Add an impact, add a DA, add an advantage, add a contention, etc.

By the time we get to rebuttals, I should have a decent grasp about what voting issues I will be voting on in the debate. A lot of the 1 AR should really be cleaning up the debate as a whole and weighing responses by the Neg with the Aff case. 1 NR should really spend a lot of time focusing on really summarizing the debate as a whole and should give me specific voting issues that the debate essentially boils down to. Feel free to give voting issues at the end of throughout your speech. They usually help me crystallize how I will be voting.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on which side best persuades me of their position. While this debater is the one which usually wins the main contentions on each side of the flow, it may not be. I usually think of offense/defense when deciding debates! As a result, please WEIGH the contentions against each other, especially when we get into the rebuttal speeches. Even if you only win one contention, if you are able to effectively weigh it against your opponent's contentions, I will have no issue voting for you. Weigh, weigh, weigh - I cannot emphasize this enough!

***Here's an example of how I decided a round with the Standardized Testing resolution: The AFF's value was morality, defined as what was right and wrong and their V/C was welfare, defined as maximizing the good of all people. The NEG's framework was also morality, defined in the same was as the AFF's but their V/C was fair comparison, defined as equal opportunities regardless of background. Suppose AFF dropped framework, I would then go on to evaluate the debate under the NEG's Value and V/C. AFF had two contentions: 1. Discrimination - Standardized testing increases discrimination towards low income and minority communities, and 2. Curriculum - standardized testing forces teachers to teach outdated information and narrow curriculum thus, decreasing student exposure to social sciences and humanities. NEG had two contentions: 1. GPA Inflation is unfair - standardized testing allows for the fairest comparison between students since GPA could be inflated, and 2. Performance Measurement - the SAT accurately measured academic performance for students. Thus, in making my decision, I would first ask, how do each of the contentions best maximize fair comparison and thus, maximize morality. Then I would go down the flow and decide who won each contention. I do this by asking how each argument and responses functioned in the debate. For example, did the AFF show me that standardized testing discriminates against people of color and low-income households? Or was the NEG able to show that adequate resources devoted to these communities not only raised scores, but also ensured that these communities we better prepared for the exam? Another example, was the NEG able to prove that if colleges no longer accepted standardized testing scores, would grade inflation result in impossible comparisons between students? Or could the AFF prove that grade inflation would not occur and that there would be heavier reliance on essays and not GPA? After deciding who won which contention, I analyze the debate as a whole - Was the GPA contention outweighed by other issues throughout the debate? (ex: Even if NEG won the GPA Contention, did AFF win the other three contentions and prove that the other three contentions outweighed NEG's winning contention? Or if AFF only won one contention, did that ONE contention outweigh any of the other contentions the NEG had?) Ultimately, the winner of the debate is who BEST persuaded me of their side through each of the contentions brought forth in the debate.

I'm also totally fine with policy type arguments in an LD round. However, while I did do a year of slow Policy Debate and feel more comfortable evaluating these type of arguments, I think that Policy and LD Debate are two different events and should thus be treated as such. Unless both debaters are comfortable with running Policy Debate type arguments in round, stick to the more traditional form of debating over the morality of the resolution. If both debaters are fine running more policy type arguments, go for it!

Overall Debate Stuff:

I'm kinda stupid - write my ballot for me. It is your job to help me understand complex arguments, not the other way around. Don't expect me to understand everything if you're spreading through an argument and you can certainly not expect me to vote on an argument that I don't understand. In other words, "you do you", but if it's not on the flow or I don't understand it, I won't vote on it.

Speed - Consider me a slow lay flow judge. While I can handle medium-slow speed, I'd prefer it you just spoke in a conversational manner as if you were talking to your parents at the dinner table. If you want to run a Kritik, Counterplan, Theory, etc. go ahead and do so, just make sure that you say it in a speed I can understand it in. Remember, if you go too fast to the point where I just put my pen down and stop flowing, your arguments aren't making it on my flow and I will not vote on them. I will yell "SLOW" and "CLEAR" a maximum of three combined times in your speech if you are going too fast or I cannot hear/understand you. If you see me put my pen down and stop flowing, you have lost me completely. Moreover, try to avoid using fast debate terminology within the round. I may not be able to understand what you are saying if it all goes over my head.

Truth v. Tech - I feel like I have a very rudimentary understanding of these terms, so if you are a debater who loves running K Arguments, Theory, 10+ DA's, likes to spread a bunch, and is unwilling to adapt to a lay judge, do us both a favor and strike me. I run a very fine and nuanced line with truth v. tech. I feel like I'm slightly tech > truth, but ONLY SLIGHTLY so. I will do my absolute best to evaluate the round solely based on the flow, but I do think that there are arguments that are just bad, like (generically listing) "racism/homophobia/ageism/poverty good" or just linking everything to nuclear war. Let me illustrate this with an example:

The Neg tries to prove that an excess of immigration within the United States will result in Trump starting a nuclear war against country "x" as a diversionary tactic because he is losing his hardline immigration battle. Personally, I do not believe this will happen, but if this is the only argument left in the round and the Affirmative drops this and the Negative extends this throughout the debate, I will have no choice but to vote Neg to prevent more lives from being lost. However, if the Affirmative is able to show me that nuclear war will not occur or can effectively delink or turn the Negative's argument of nuclear war or can outweigh nuclear war (i.e. benefits of passing plan outweigh the possibility of nuclear war, which only has a close-to-zero percent chance of happening), I will be more inclined to believe that the Affirmative has won this argument based on any evidence/turn they give me, but also based on what I personally believe will happen. I will not arbitrarily insert my own beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters create a situation in which that case occurs, as with the example seen above, I will be inclined to vote for the debater that has the more true argument and the argument that makes more sense logically with me.

Tabula Rasa - As seen with the example above, I'm not Tabula Rasa. I really don't think that any judge can truly be "tab," for who am I to decide what is true? Again, I won't arbitrarily insert my beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters have an argument that I believe is "true," I will be more inclined to buy that argument unless a team convinces me otherwise. In other words, there exist arguments that I am more likely to agree with and arguments I am more likely to buy and vote on. Either way, I will evaluate the round from what I have written on the flow. Furthermore, take these examples:

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California while the Negative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. In making my decision, I will side with the latter based on outside knowledge and because it is the argument I think is more "true" based on outside knowledge.

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California. The Negative does not respond to this claim. While I do not think that the Affirmative's claim is true, the Negative does not respond to this argument and thus, I will consider the Affirmative's argument as valid and evaluate the round as such.

Judge Intervention - Take this as you will, but I strongly also believe that I as a judge should not arbitrarily intervene during the debate and should listen to the arguments presented in the round as brought up by the debaters. So like what I wrote under the Policy Debate part of the paradigm, go ahead and run whatever argument you want. As long as I understand it, I will put it on my flow. See "Speed" and "K's/Theory" portion of this section for more information about what arguments you should run if I'm your judge. It is ultimately a debater's job to help me understand their/his/her argument, not vice versa. Moreover, I will not weigh for you - that being said, if neither team runs arguments that I understand and neither team weighs, I will be forced to intervene.

~~~

Brief note: OK, so I get that the non interventionist approach contradicts the fact that I am more inclined to vote for an argument that I think is "true." As a judge I can promise you that I will flow what I can listen to and will evaluate the round holistically. I am an incredibly nuanced person and I think my paradigm reflects this (perhaps a little too much)...

~~~

PLEASE CLASH WITH ARGUMENTS! CLASH! CLASH! CLASH! Don't let the debate devolve into two boats sailing past each other in the night. At that point, it's completely pointless. I'd also prefer fewer well developed arguments over that of many arguments loosely tied together. Please don't brief barf or pack the flow with pointless arguments which aren't well developed. I may not include undeveloped arguments in my RFD if I deem that they are pointless or unimportant to the debate overall. Also, over the course of the debate as a whole, I would prefer fewer, but more well developed arguments, rather than a ton of arguments that go unsubstantiated.

Tag-Team CX/Flex Prep - I'm fine with this, just make sure that you're the one talking for most of the time. Your partner can't and shouldn't control your time. It is your Cross-Examination/Cross-fire after all. Same with speeches - essentially, don't have your partner be constantly interjecting you when you are speaking - you should be the one talking! If it seems as if your partner is commandeering your cross-examination or speech time, I will lower your speaks. Also totally fine with flex prep - you may use your prep time however you'd like, but since this time is not considered "official" cross-ex time, whether or not the opponent actually responds to the question is up to them. While I do not flow CX, I do pay close attention and if I look confused, I am more often thinking intensely about what you said, rather than emoting disagreement.

Roadmaps + Overviews - Please have them, and roadmaps may absolutely be off-time! I literally love/need roadmaps! They help me organize my flow make the debate/your speech a lot easier to follow! There should be a decent overview at the top of (at the minimum), each rebuttal - condense the round for me and summarize why you win each of the major arguments that comes up. Don't spend too much time on the overview, but don't ignore it.

K's and Theory - I'm not familiar with any literature at all! While you may choose to run K's or Theory (it is your round after all), I will do my very best to try and understand your argument. If I do not understand what you are saying, then I will not put it on my flow or vote on it. If you go slow, I will be more inclined to understand you and flow what you are saying. Again, not on the flow/don't understand = I won't vote on it.

Conditionality - This is fine. Though if you decide to kick anything, kick it earlier in the debate, don't wait until the 2NR unless it is strategic to do so. Please also make sure that your arguments are not contradictory - I have had to explain to teams about why running a Capitalism K on how the government perpetuates capitalism and then also running a CP where the Federal Government is the actor is ironic. In any case, kick the whichever argument is weaker and explain why Condo is good. Also, don't advocate for an unconditional position and then proceed to kick it or drop it. That would be bad.

Cross-applying - Don't just say "cross-apply my responses with Contention 1 on the Aff Case with Contention 2 on the Neg Case." This doesn't mean anything. Show me specifically how you group arguments together and explain how exactly your responses are better than your opponent's. Moreover, show me how your cross-application effectively answers their arguments - Does it de-link a disadvantage? Does it turn an argument? Does it effectively make Aff's actor in the plan powerless? Does it take out a crucial piece of evidence? What exactly does your cross-application do and how does it help you win the debate?

Dropped Arguments + Extensions - In regards to dropped contentions, subpoints, or impacts, I will personally extend all contentions, arguments, impacts, etc. that you individually tell me to extend. For all those arguments that were not extended and were dropped by the opponent, I will NOT personally extend myself. You must tell me to extend all dropped arguments or I will consider it dropped by you as well. All dropped contentions, subpoints, impacts, etc. should not be voter issues for the side that dropped it. I will drop all voter issues that were stated in the rebuttal if they were dropped by your side.

I did Interp, so my facial expressions will be turned "on" for the debate. If I like something, I will probably be nodding at you when you speak. Please do not feel intimidated if I look questioned or concerned when you speak. It does not show that you are losing the debate, nor does it show that you will be getting less speaks. However, if I seems like I am genuinely confused or have just put my pen down, you have lost me.

In regards to all debates, write the ballot for me, especially in the rebuttal speeches. Tell me why you win the round, and weigh arguments against each other!

ALSO, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, and SIGNPOST. The easier you make it for me to follow you in the round, the easier I can flow and be organized, and the easier you can win. Trust me, nothing's worse than when you're confused. KEEP THE ROUND CLEAN!

Don't be a jerk. It's the easiest way to lose speaker points. (Or even perhaps the round!) Good POI's/CX Q's and a good sense of humor get you higher speaks.

Links/Impacts - Be smart with this. I'm not a big fan of linking everything to nuclear war, unless you can prove to be that there is beyond a reason of a doubt that nuclear war occurs. So two things about impacts/links - the more practical and pragmatic you can make them, the better. I'm more inclined to buy well warranted and substantiated links to arguments. For example:

Plea bargaining --> incarceration --> cycle of poverty (These arguments are linked together and make logical sense. If we added "nuclear war" after "cycle of poverty," I'll just stare at you weirdly.)

Second, truth v. tech also applies with impacts and links, so if the Aff brings up a nuclear war will be caused by Trump as a diversionary tactic due to more immigration, and the Neg refutes that logically by taking out a link, I'll probably buy their argument (see the truth v. tech example I give). If the Neg doesn't respond, then the argument is valid. However, if the Neg is able to essentially group arguments and respond to them while weighing and shows me that even if they didn't answer this argument, Neg wins most everything else, I may still vote Neg.

I firmly believe that debate is not a game. It is an educational opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and to communicate efficiently between groups of people. Please don't try to make debate more complicated than it already is.

In regards to evidence in all debates: Yes, you need it - and should have a good amount of it. I know you only get 20 minutes to prep in Parli, and that you're not allowed internet prep (at some tournaments). But I need you to substantiate all claims with evidence. It doesn't have to be all subpoints and for every argument, but I will definitely be less inclined to vote for you if you only have one citation in the 19 minutes you speak, while your opponents have 7+ citations in the total 19 minutes they speak. Do not give me 7 minutes of analytics with no evidence at all. More evidence = more compelling. That being said, make sure that you also have a very strong amount of analytics as well. Don't just give me a lot of evidence without good analytics. Good analysis props up evidence and evidence supports good analysis. I would also much rather have a 4-5 good/solid pieces of evidence over 10+ trashy cards that don't help your case or add much to the debate. Essentially what I'm trying to say here is that good analysis > bad evidence any day, any round, and QUALITY > QUANTITY!!!

Do not CHEAT and make up cards, or clip cards, or anything of the like. Just don't. I will give you an automatic loss if you choose to do so. (Please don't make me do this...)

Time yourselves using whatever method you feel comfortable with! iPhone, SmartWatch, computer timer, etc. If you are taking prep, please announce it for me and your competitor to hear. Flashing or sending documents does not count as prep, though this needs to be taken care of in an expeditious manner. If you are caught abusing prep time, I will tank your speaks.

WEIGH - WEIGH - WEIGH!!! This is SO IMPORTANT, especially when debates come down to the wire. The team that does the better weighing will win the round if it's super tight! I won't weigh for you. Make my job easy and weigh. Again, as pieced together from previous parts of the paradigm, even if a team drops 3 out of the 5 arguments, if the team is able to show that the two arguments they do win outweigh the 3 arguments they lost, I will be more inclined to vote for that team that does the better weighing. I also love world comparisons, so weigh the world of the Affirmative and Negative and tell me which one is better for society, people, etc. after the implementation or non-implementation of the plan!

I will not disclose after the round (if I'm judging in the Coast Forensics League)! I usually disclose after invites though, given enough time. Either way, if you have questions about the round, please feel free to come and ask me if you aren't in round! I'll make myself visible throughout the tournament! If you can't find me, please feel free to contact me at xavier.liu17@gmail.com if you have any questions about the round! Please also feel free to contact me after the tournament regarding RFDs and comments!

FOR IE'S:

Ok. Now onto my favorite events of Speech and Debate. The IE's. First, I did Interp for a lot of my years competing, specifically DI, DUO, and OI. I've also done EXPOS (INF) as well. Take the Platform Events paradigm with a grain of salt. While there are many things that you could do to get the "1" in the room, I am particularly looking at several things that put you over the top.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

For Extemp (IX, DX) - I will flow your speech as thoroughly as I can. Please expect to have CITATIONS - at the minimum: news organization and date (month, day, year). An example: "According to Politico on February 13th of 2019..." If you have the author, even better - "John Smith, a columnist for Politico, writes on February 13th of 2019..." Please note that fabricating or making up citations or evidence is cheating and you will be given the lowest rank in the room and reported to Tab. You must have strong analysis within your speech. This analysis should supplement your evidence and your analysis should explain why your evidence is pertinent in answering the question. Good evidence and analysis trumps pretty delivery any day. Most importantly, make sure that you ANSWER THE QUESTION - I cannot give you a high rank if you do not answer the question.

For Impromptu (IMP) - I will flow your points as thoroughly as I can. I expect to see a thesis at the end of the intro and two to three well developed examples and points that support your thesis. While you do not have to have citations like Extemp, I would like to see specificity. Good analysis is also important and you need to make sure that your analysis ties into the thesis that you give me at the top of the intro. I also don't really like personal stories as examples and points in the Impromptu. I feel like personal stories are really generic and can always be canned. However, if done well and tied in well, personal stories do enhance the Impromptu! Use your discretion during prep time to decide if you want to use a personal story in your speech and how effective your personal story is. I also give bonus points and higher ranks to originality rather than canned speeches. Most importantly, make sure that you clearly develop your points and examples and explain why they apply to your thesis. I will default to California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) rules for Impromptu prep - 2 minutes of prep, with 5 minutes speaking - unless told otherwise by Tab/Tournament Officials.

Time signals for Impromptu and Extemp: With Extemp, I will give you time signals from 6 minutes left and down, Impromptu from 4 left and down. 30 seconds left will be indicated with a "C," 15 seconds left will be indicated with a closed "C," I will count down with my fingers for the last 10 seconds of the speech, with a fist at 7 or 5 minutes. I will show you what this looks like before you speak so you know what each signal looks like. With Impromptu prep, I will verbally announce how much prep is left: "1 minute left," "30 seconds left," "15 seconds." I will say "Time" when prep has ended. If I forget to give you time signals: 1. I fervently apologize; 2. This is probably a good thing since I was so invested in your speech or getting comments in; 3. You will NOT be responsible any time violations if you go overtime because it was my fault that you went overtime in the first place. #3 only applies if I literally forget to give you time signals; ex: I give you a time signal for 6 minutes left, but not 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1. If I forget to give you a signal for 4 minutes left, but get everything else, you're not off the hook then. I will also not stop you if you go beyond the grace period. Continue speaking until you have finished your speech.

For Original Advocacy and Original Oratory (OA/OO) - I will be primarily concerned with content. I will be looking for establishment of a clear problem (harms) and how that is plaguing us/society (inherency), and then I will be looking for a solution of some sort to address this problem (solvency). There must be some combination of these three in your speech. I will also be looking for evidence, analysis, and a strong synthesis between the two. Good speeches will have solid harms AND will explain how the solution solves their harms. Delivery should be natural, not canned or forced and facial expressions should not be over exaggerated.

For Expository Speaking/Informative Speaking (EXPOS/INF) - Again, primarily concerned with content. While Visual Aids (VAs) are important, they should serve to guide the speech, not distract me. That being said, I do enjoy interactive VAs that not only enhance the piece, but make me think about what you are saying. While puns and humor are both important, jokes should have a purpose in guiding your speech and enhancing it, and should not be included for the sole purpose of making anyone laugh. While I think that there doesn't necessarily need to be a message at the end of the speech, I should most definitely be informed of the topic that you are speaking to me about and I should've learned something new by the end of the 10 minute speech. Transitions from aspect to aspect in the speech should be clear and should not leave me confused about what you are talking about.

General Stuff for Platform Events:

1. Content > Delivery (Though I did Interp, so delivery is pretty important to me as well. Kinda like a 60-65% content, 35-40% delivery.)

What I have below is taken from Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm for Platform Events:

2. Projection and Enunciation are not the same as volume.

3. Repetitive vocal patterns, distracting hand gestures, robotic delivery, and unneeded micromovements will only hurt you.

4. Pacing, timing, and transitions are all important - take your time with these.

5. Natural Delivery > Forced/Exaggerated

6. Time Signals for OO, OA, and EXPOS - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I am most well versed in DI, OI, and DUO, but as a coach, I've worked with DI, OI, HI, POI, OPP, and DUO.

For Dramatic Interpretation, Dramatic Duo Interpretations, and Dramatic Original Prose and Poetry (DI, DUO, OPP) - Subtlety > Screamy, any day, any time. I'm not against screaming, but they should be during appropriate moments during the piece. Emotions should build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For Humorous Interpretation, Humorous Duo Interpretations, and Humorous Original Prose and Poetry (HI, DUO, OPP) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. What I mean by this is that you should be thinking throughout your piece. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For Programmed Oral Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality.

For Oratorical Interpretation (OI) - Please err on the side of natural emotion over forced facial expressions. I am not a big fan when speakers try to force emotion or simply convey no emotion when speaking. Script selection is obviously a big deal in this event. Choose a speech with a promising and important message and see if you can avoid overdone speeches.

General Stuff for Interpretation Events:

A lot of this and my Interpretation paradigm is very much similar to Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm. He and I agree on a lot of things, including what I will write below.

1. Subtlety > Screamy - I tend to enjoy the small nuances of emotion. Build the emotion throughout, don't go from "0 to 100 real quick." Don't force emotion.

2. "Acting is reacting." - Each movement and action should have a purpose. Swaying or distracting micro-movements are bad. When one character or partner says something or does something, there should be a reaction from another character or by the other partner. Watch what is happening and react accordingly.

3. Let the eyes speak. Eyes are underutilized in Interp - I feel like everyone is so focused on facial expression and eyebrows/body language, that they forget about the eyes. Intensity can be portrayed in absolute silence.

4. If I am not laughing during your speech, it's not because it's not funny. I am just super focused on you and watching every little part of your blocking and your facial expressions.

5. Please watch body position - misplaced feet, hands, or mistimed blocking is a big no-no.

6. No blocking > bad blocking - you don't need to be doing something ALL the time. Sometimes, standing still and doing nothing is better than always doing something.

7. Use pacing and timing to your advantage.

8. Quality of cut is fair game.

9. Message of the piece - I don't think that there necessarily needs to be a super strong message to the piece itself. I'd be totally fine if the piece was literally 7 short stories that were interwoven together and each story had it's own little thing going on. I'm more concerned about the performance/technical blocking itself. That being said, if I literally do not understand what is going on in the piece, we have a big problem. Exception to this is OI.

10. THINK!!!!!!!! And do not let the energy wane!

11. Time Signals for DI, HI, DUO, OPP, POI/POE/PRO, OI - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have only judged Congress a handful of times, so please take what I write with a grain of salt.

In regards to speeches, I do not value speakers who speak at the beginning of a session more than those who speak towards the end, or vice versa. Opening speeches and the first couple speeches (around 1-2 on each side) afterwards should set up the main arguments as of why the chamber should be voting in favor or against the piece of legislation. After the 2nd speech on each side, you should really be clashing with arguments, impacting out both evidence and analysis, and weighing arguments against each other. Rehashing arguments made by other Congressional Debaters or "throwing more evidence" as a response to arguments is unimpressive.

During cross, if you just toss around random questions that do not actually pertain to the debate, your ranks will suffer. Remember to attack ideas and engage with the speaker who just spoke - save the argumentation for the speech. If you get the other speaker to concede something and you are able to use that in your speech, ranks will go up.

Respond to the actual links or the claims themselves and convince me why your claim is stronger. I welcome direct responses and refutations to another Congressperson's arguments, though please make it clear whom you are responding to and what the argument is. For example: "Next, I would like to refute Rep. Liu's argument that this bill would disadvantage states in the Midwest."

I'm a big stickler for Parliamentary Procedure, which means that if you are a PO, mistakes will be costly. Further, if you are acting like a biased PO, favoring certain speakers or debaters over other, you will be dropped.

Also, please note that "motion" is a noun. "Move" is a verb. So it's not: "I motion to adjourn." It would be: "I move to adjourn." PO's, remember that you cannot "assume unanimous consent" - a member of the chamber must ask for unanimous consent.

~~~

Feel free to ask me any questions about the paradigm, both speech and/or debate before the round begins. Or feel free to email me questions about my paradigm at xavier.liu17@gmail.com.

If you are confused about the RFD/comments I have written for either speech and/or debate, please also feel free to contact me whenever you'd like to at the above email.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!! GO. FIGHT. WIN.

Yang Liu Los Altos High School 3 rounds

Ryan Love Dripping Springs High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 9:05 AM EST

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

VBI San Diego 24'-PF lab leader

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

General debate thoughts (PF/LD/Policy/WSD)As cringe as it is to write, I view myself as a critic of argumentation. This means that any argument you make must be warranted. Absent a warrant your argument is not an argument and I will not flow it.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the rebuttals/Final focus, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 5 seconds of the final speech. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal/final focus, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last speech.

Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

Policy:I have not judged much on the patents topic, I do not know the lingo, I do not know what is considered "topical" by the community. Start slower and work up to full speed.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Any other questions let me know!

Public Forum:

TLDR: Tech>truth, I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): At this point it's either Util or Structural violence which is fine. If you are going to read a framing argument use it. If both sides are reading the same frameworkbe comparative. I find link ins to framing to be persuasive when well explained. If both sides have a different framework tell me why to prefer yours, or link in, or both. Going for magnitude meta-weighing and structural violence is kind of strange absent good warranting.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: Tread carefully all ye who enter here.Disclosure and round reports theory are going to be an auto L-25 unless your opponent is reading some way off the wall argument that is not germane to the topic. In general the more "progressive" the argument the more willing I am to evaluate theory. Any attempts to read theory as a cheap shot victory will mean you get dropped. Reading theory args to "keep PF public" are persuasive to me. So spreading theory is not the worst if your opponents are going too fast. All of that being said theory debate is the debate I LEAST want to see. If a team reads theory against you, you should make it an RVI. It doesn't make sense in an event that is so short speech time wise that a team can read theory and not go for it, but as the team getting theory read on you, you need to make that argument.

Non-traditional stuff/Kritiks: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. Kritiks with a strong link to the topic are really underutilized in my opinion in PF. Performative kritiks/kritiks that do not have a strong link to the topic have less pedagogical value in this event (I can expand on this thought if you ask me about it), however if that's your strat go for it. That being said, especially with non topical kritiks, I am more than willing to evaluate theory arguments about why kritiks are bad in PF/why topical education/fairness is preferable.

Argument rankings:

Substance-1

Topical Kritiks-1

Non-topical kritks-3

Theory-4

Tricks- -10000000000000000000

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

Michelle Luo The Awty International School 2 rounds

Neil Mao Saratoga HS 2 rounds

Sergio Martinez Oakwood School 5 rounds

Cale McCrary Magnolia 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 1:01 AM MST

I've been coaching and judging for 8 years, primarily PF and LD.

Email- cale@victorybriefs.com (SpeechDrop works too)

Affiliations: Del Norte, Magnolia, Director of PF at VBI

Former: Westlake, Flanagan, Corona del Sol, Brophy, Quarry Lane

General:

I want you to read whatever you are best at provided you are clear. Judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun.

Debate is hard work, so I will work hard to flow closely and give you a well reasoned decision. However, absent clarity, I can't do that.

Being clear means you:
- Send a well-organized doc.
- Are explicitly line by lining arguments, not vaguely cross-applying an overview all over the place.
- Signposting when you're transitioning between arguments.
- Numbering and delineating different answers.

Any speed is 100% fine, but whenever I am not confident in a decision, I can usually trace it back to one of the above elements.

I won't 'gut-check' or hand wave away your opponents' argument because you think it's silly or under warranted. Engage in the argument- if it's as frivolous as you're suggesting, doing so should be easy.

Finally, be kind to each other. I am a teacher and would appreciate if you treated each other the same way you would in a classroom. This includes arguments that insert screenshots or other personal information about your opponent: save for disclosure arguments, this is not the place.

Policy:

I will judge kick the CP. I am good for your competition-based or process CP and find most blippy cp theory claims to be less persuasive than meaningful engagements in a competition debate. With that being said, walls of three word perms aren't 'meaningful engagement'- contextualize your permutations. My default is limitless condo. I won't hack for it, but it is a strong default.

Zero-risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero.

I do not actively coach policy, and have primarily judged LD the past three seasons, so you should probably err on the side of being extra clear in standards debates on T.

I can judge critical debates, but often find myself frustrated with teams that are too overview heavy. Please explicitly line by line your opponent's fw claims, particularly if you're a planless aff.

I deeply appreciate well executed impact turn debates.

LD:

Policy- what I judge most. Everything above applies, although I am much more open to claims against limitless condo given speech times- just make your cp theory claims more precise.

Theory- For some reason, this is 90% of what I judge. Please always send interps at a minimum, and MEANINGFULLY slow down for anything you extemp. To make this more tolerable, please lbl your opponent's theory hedge clearly. Debates where the 1n theory hedge is vaguely cross-applied to a 1ac theory overview are impossible to disentangle.

Tricks- Requirements for me to vote here: 1. It has a warrant & implication 2. It is delineated in the doc (not in the cut of a card or hidden in a tag) 3. You're not being intentionally obtuse in cross 4. You slow way down in the rebuttal speeches to make the extension + application of the argument exceptionally clear. With all of that being said, I have no predisposition against voting here, particularly if you're just going for a fw trigger like skep or something.

K- Don't be so overview heavy, and don't assume I know your literature's jargon. Otherwise happy to judge it.

Phil- I have next to no experience save for Kant- I mostly judge nonsense tricky stuff. Need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

Traditional- I am unfamiliar with how to evaluate value/value criterion style debate. I am rarely sure what is happening in these rounds and will need extra judge instruction.

PF:

Extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument.

I can judge theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF- I only ask you don't read these positions just for the sake of doing it.

PF is basically never too fast, so the clarity stuff is less important. Just remember to signpost and to differentiate tags from the cut of your card while reading. If you're a traditional or lay team please don't worry about any of it.

Come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). The only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

Sana Mehra National Debate Club (NDC) 4 rounds None

Ara Mehran Fairmont Prep 6 rounds

Niti Mendiratta Emerald High School 4 rounds

Gregory Meredith Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Manvendra Mishra Lynbrook HS 6 rounds

Zakir Murtaza Northwood High School 4 rounds None

Rami Naji Branham High School 6 rounds

Edwin Ng Brooks Debate Institute 6 rounds None

Amy Nguyen Brooks Debate Institute 6 rounds None

Nate Odenkirk Oakwood School 5 rounds

Poema Oleas Mekhitarian Flintridge Preparatory 6 rounds

Mansi Parekh Pleasanton Independent 4 rounds None

Rahil Pasha Brooks Debate Institute 6 rounds

Les Phillips The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 7, 2024 at 2:24 AM PST

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

William Pirone College Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 9:53 PM PST

TOC:

Let’s move quickly, TOC rules say your prep starts during evidence exchange

Go like 85% of normal tech speed haven’t judged in a minute

* * * * *

I debated for three years on the national circuit for College Prep. I now privately coach.

Add me to the email chain: wpirone@stanford.edu .

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has become egregiously long over the years so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can argue anything you want in front of me. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with. I enjoy voting on creative, fun arguments I haven't heard before.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow directly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. That said, please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

I tend to be very facially expressive when judging—it can help you know which args to collapse on and which to kick. If I'm vibing with something you're saying, I'll nod along with it during your speech. Argument selection is critical to my ballot—identify the best possible collapse strategy, go for the right argument, and do solid comparison on it.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, just make a warrant why I should evaluate the round differently. I'm open to almost everything.

Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested, you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal links in summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm: I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This also applies to responses such as "they don't prove xyz" or "they don't explain who what when where why"—make actual arguments instead.

Well-warranted analytics are great, blippy analytics are a headache.

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better (larger, faster, more probable, etc). On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

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

Theory:

I'll tolerate theory. I'm chill with any shell as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me. Friv is fine, just make it funny (dinosaur/shoe/no evidence theory is interesting, disclose rebuttal evidence is boring).

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

If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.

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

I will evaluate topical kritiks. I'm relatively comfortable with Baudrillard, biopolitics, cap, imperialism, and security—anything else is a stretch so please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read a Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks (especially if you indict the methodology of specific studies from their case).

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way) you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument. Similarly, rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Totally open to theory against these though – just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant, anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

These are fun, but never voting for unwarranted blips like ROTO or “eval after the 1ac.” Paradoxes, skep, etc are ok.

GOATs:

I aspire to judge similarly to Ilan Ben-Avi, Ishan Dubey, and Ryan Jiang.

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I always default to the first speaking team.

Speaks:

I award speaks based on fluency and in-round strategy. Humor also helps.

Most importantly, have fun! Let me know before/after the round if you have any questions or want extra feedback.

—WP

Sandeep Raghav American High 3 rounds

Ashok Rajagopalan BASIS Peoria Independent 2 rounds

Rajasree Rajendran American High 3 rounds

Frida Ramirez Westridge School 6 rounds

Shuba Ravikumar Flower Mound High School 6 rounds

Daniel Rivero Christopher Columbus High School 4 rounds

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:32 AM PST

Gabe Rusk ☮️&♡

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Somaliland Topic ASU/Ivy RR/Emory

Secession not the HBO show Succession. SECEDE NOT SUCCEED GREG.

Era-tree-uh (Eritrea)

Moe-guh-DEE-shoe (Mogadishu)

DJuh-booty (Djibouti)

Gulf of Aye-den (Gulf of Aden)

Who-thee (Houthi)

Al Shuh-bob (Al-Shabaab)

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at ISD, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

1 (Thriving) - 5 (Vibes Are Dwindling) - 10 (Death of the Soul)

LARP -1

Topical Kritiks - 4

Theory - 5

Non-T Kritiks - 6

"Friv" Theory/Trix - 8

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. This is why metaweighing is so important. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc is a means to differentiate but you need to give me warrants, evidence, reasons why prob > mag for example. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

I would prefer if case docs were sent prior to the constructives, please.
(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence.Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do.
Second rebuttal must at least respond to turns/terminal defense against their own case.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

Subrata Saharoy Lynbrook HS 6 rounds

Sarah Santorsiero Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Brandon Schletzbaum Milpitas 6 rounds

Christina Scott Glacier Peak High School 2 rounds None

Boris Senderzon Palo Alto High School 2 rounds

Ivan Shah Mountain House High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 3:51 AM PST

## About Me
- Pronouns: He/Him
- BSBA Finance + Pre-law student at USC
- Experienced in Varsity Public Forum (Dougherty Valley SD) and Impromptu
- PF debater for over 5 years, 17 bids (11 gold)
- 2023-2024 Gold Bid leader

- 9th at NSDA Nationals 2024

- GTOC 3x, NSDA 2X, CA States 2X
- Championships: LCC, Jack Howe, etc; Finalist: Milpitas; Semis: Cal RR, Peninsula; Quarters: Berkeley, Presentation, etc

- Peaked #2

- Email: ivan.binds@gmail.com

## General Approach
- Tabula Rasa
- Tech over truth, 110%
- Will evaluate any argument run (I mean it)
- Prefer progressive debate. (Default: Theory > K > Case) But open to K > Theory, etc
- Experienced with current topics
- Fast rounds preferred

##TLDR: Similar views to Nethra

## Pre-Round Expectations
- Label email chains properly (e.g., "Nats 24 R3 F1 Email Chain Dougherty Valley DS V. Durham BH")
- Have pre-flows ready
- Be on time
- Wear what you want + Sit/Stand (No Preference)
- Be as assertive as you like

## Speed and Clarity
- Any speed is fine
- For online rounds: Will say "Clear" twice if needed
- Provide speech docs for spreading for opps. I've never had to flow of the doc in 4 years so we should be good

## Arguments and Structure
- Clash is important w/ warrents
- Weighing is crucial - helps determine ballot
- Collapsing/crystallizing is essential
- Don't go for every argument on the flow
- Signpost and use brief roadmaps (max 10 seconds)
- Meta-weighing (comparative weighing) appreciated
- Unique weighing early in the round preferred

- DO NOT READ DEFINITIONS

## Speech-Specific Expectations
### Rebuttal
- Read as much offense/DAs as desired
- Implicate arguments in line-by-line
- 2nd Rebuttal must frontline terminal defense and turns

- No need to extend shells, case, etc in Rebuttal (read as much new stuff as possible)

### Summary
- 1st Summary: Extend turns + Case, terminal defense if time allows
- 2nd Summary: Extend as much defense as possible with author names (case too)

### Final Focus
- 1st FF: New meta*weighing allowed if ops weighing was introduced in 2nd summary, no new implications unless responding to 2nd Summary
- 2nd FF: No new weighing or implications
- Summary/FF parallelism appreciated

## Cross
- Will listen but not flow arguments unless restated in speeches
- Be strategic and smart with questions
- Some sass and fun in cross is appreciated
- Don't be too uptight

## Evidence
- Fine with email chains for evidence exchange
- Don't ask for too much evidence (at that point just send entire docs)

- Don't steal prep (I won't care unless the ops call you out)
- 2-minute limit for pulling up cards
- Will only examine evidence if asked, seems dubious, or major clash occurs
- Send docs with cards before every speech for higher speaks

- If chosen to flash cards, time yourself + Ops when reading them

- It seems I have a high bar for Ev. Challenges/TKOs unless blatant Clipping, ellipses, distortion, etc. (Safer to just read a IVI?)

## Progressive Debate
- Experienced with Ks and theory
- Default: Theory > K > Case and Text > Spirit (but can be changed)
- For tricks: Win truth testing, don't default to comparing worlds obv.
- Don't just read tricks after defaulting to comparing worlds (considered a defaulted perf con)
- Enjoy prog rounds over substance ones, but don't be discouraged if you're new to it I'd love to help out after round

- No need to extend the shell in Rebuttal, or extend Default CI/Reasonability or no/yes RVIs if both teams agree.

- I've voted for anything, even friv theory (ie: water bottle theory)

## Speaks
- Generally high (above 29, 99.99% of the time)
- Docked for:
- Going 10 seconds over time (Time your ops please)
- Reading a shell you violate
- Humor is appreciated and can boost speaks

## Decision and Post-Round
- Will always provide oral decisions
- Post-round discussions welcomed
- Decision only changed if wrong button pressed on tab

## Bonus (for certain tournaments)
For default 29.9 speaks, provide me with water or some drink. (December Update*: I save 30s for immaculate performances)

Remember, I will evaluate every argument and keep rounds fast. I prefer progressive debate but can obv. handle any substance rounds as well. I presume first>neg>shorter speech times (or whoever gives good warrants) Feel free to contact me for any questions or clarifications. I had a longer paradigm before but ChatGPT has crystallized it pretty well :).

## Last thoughts: Have fun; you'll regret being too uptight after your last career round.

Ismail Shaik Archbishop Mitty 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 12:27 PM PST

I think of arguments as story-telling in which there is ideally a logical series of events that lead to a specific result. I like it when there is clash generated between your story and that of your opponent at whatever level possible. How do they compare qualitatively? How do they interact with one another? Which is based on more academically rigorous evidence? Which do I prioritize and why?

As such, even if it is true that tech > truth, I find arguments based on 'truth' generally more persuasive. I am a fan of creative, well-researched arguments germane to the topic. Smart analytics/thumpers alone can convince me to be skeptical of squirrely arguments that rely on suspect evidence to catch opponents off-guard or worst-case scenarios/convoluted link chains that terminalize to nuclear war, state collapse, extinction, global recession, etc. (though I understand the push for these arguments in faster debates and acknowledge that some topics lend themselves to such scenarios). Simply, good logic > bad evidence. Warranting and implicating is necessary, especially of arguments you choose to collapse on. Without them, the argument may as well not be extended.

In-round decision-making, specifically knowing what to collapse on (for both offense and defense) by identifying where you are ahead/behind and what your best path to the ballot is (how does winning a certain argument or even a singular piece of evidence frame the debate as a whole?), is the best way to receive higher speaker points from me. It is not always the most strategic thing to collapse on what you believe is an undercovered argument of yours.

I most appreciate PF rounds that do not try to be Policy rounds but I am open to well-justified, non-generic Ks and theory arguments on issues like evidence malpractice (paraphrasing is problematic, unconvinced that disclosure is needed).

Topical education is good but can be impact turned. Defense is sticky. Speed is fine.

Lynbrook-Rohit Shrivastava Lynbrook HS 2 rounds None

Mrugendra Singhai Mira Loma High School 6 rounds

Yogesh Singhal Emerald High School 4 rounds None

Jayati Sinha Pleasanton Independent 4 rounds None

Lavanya Siva Vista Del Lago High School

Gireesha Sooryanarayana Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 1:50 PM PST

Hello Competitors!

I’m a parent judge with a few years of experience judging debate rounds.

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

Please don't rush or spread. I like to take notes, and if I’m unable to, you're likely speaking too fast.
Be clear in your explanations. Assume I have no prior knowledge of the topic.
Maintain respect. Avoid any language that is racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

I value well-organized content and clear communication, especially when supported by real-world examples. Engaging the audience with gestures, vocal variety, movement, and expression also helps enhance your delivery.

I prefer a roadmap before the time starts, as it helps both me and the audience navigate the speech, ensuring clear organization and structure.

A typical roadmap might look like this:

In a constructive speech, the roadmap lays out the order of the main contentions (key arguments) to be presented.
In a rebuttal or closing speech, it highlights which arguments will be defended, refuted, or extended, and in what order.

I have great respect for each of you. Your hard work and dedication are truly impressive, and I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts.

Here are key metrics I consider judging PF debate:

1. Clash of Arguments

Argumentation: Evaluate the strength of each team's arguments and how effectively they support their claims.
Clash: Pay attention to how well the teams engage with each other's arguments. Do they directly respond to the opposing team's points or just repeat their case?
Impact Calculus: Assess how well the teams explain the impact of their arguments. Strong debaters explain why their impacts (e.g., economic, social, etc.) outweigh the opponent’s impacts.

2. Evidence and Sources

Quality of Evidence: Consider how credible, relevant, and well-explained the evidence is. Are the sources reliable? Do they back up key points?
Warranting: Does the team clearly explain how their evidence connects to their arguments and conclusions?

3. Clarity and Communication

Presentation Style: How clearly and confidently do the debaters present their case? Are their speeches easy to follow, or do they rush or use unclear language?
Roadmaps: Are roadmaps used effectively to guide the judge and audience through the speech?
Cross-Examination: During cross-examination, does the questioning team ask sharp, relevant questions that highlight weaknesses? Does the answering team remain composed and give clear responses?

4. Framework

Framework (if provided): Some teams will present a framework—a lens through which to evaluate the debate (e.g., economic benefits, human rights). Consider how well each team aligns their arguments with this framework.
Weighing Mechanisms: If both teams provide competing frameworks or ways to weigh impacts, evaluate which one is more convincing and why.

5. Refutation and Rebuttal

Defense: Are teams successfully defending their own arguments against attacks?
Offense: Do they effectively dismantle the opposing team’s case, showing why it’s flawed or less impactful?
Extensions: Are the teams extending their key arguments throughout the debate, maintaining their importance and relevance?

6. Impact Comparison

Impact Weighing: Good debaters explain why their impacts (e.g., reducing poverty, saving lives, protecting the environment) are more important than their opponents’. They should also compare the magnitude, timeframe, and probability of their impacts.
Conceded Impacts: If a team concedes an argument or fails to respond, that may be a major point in favor of the opposing team.

7. Overall Persuasion

Big Picture: Which team tells a more compelling story overall? This includes how well they package their arguments and how cohesive their overall narrative is.
Consistency: Were the arguments consistent throughout the debate, or did they contradict themselves or shift their positions?

Additional Factors:

Etiquette and Respect: A professional, respectful attitude is important. Teams should engage in civil discourse, not resort to ad hominem attacks or unprofessional behavior.
Strategy: Consider the strategy used by each team. Did they focus on the most important issues or get bogged down in irrelevant details?

At the End of the Debate:

After the final speeches, as a judge, I weigh the arguments, evidence, and impacts presented by both teams. The winning team should be the one that best fulfills the metrics above and presents a stronger overall case within the framework of the debate.

While personal preferences on speaking style or argument structure may vary, staying focused on these objective metrics will help me render a fair and balanced decision.

Best of luck!

(He/Him)

Savitha Srivatsa Los Altos High School 6 rounds None

Lakshminarayanan Striramassarma Vista Del Lago High School 6 rounds

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EST

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

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

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Anbu Subramanian The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Stella Sung Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 3:12 AM PST

JANUARY, 2025 UPDATE:I prefer to judge lay rounds as indicated in my paradigm below. However, in the last few months, I have judged K rounds, theory rounds, and elim rounds where one or both teams have spread. Please note that I have so far never squirreled in an elim round where teams have run either Ks, theory or have spread (though I ask for the docs)...and often I am the lay/flay on a panel with 2 tech judges. Coincidence? Who knows? But I feel like I should provide this information so that teams can decide what arguments they want to read. Good luck, all! :)

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

********************************************************************************************************************************

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

Aakash Suresh Palo Alto High School 2 rounds

ERTAI TAI Monta Vista High School 4 rounds

Jianjing Tang Pleasanton Independent 4 rounds

Snehal Thakkar Khan Lab School 6 rounds

Zaid Umar Archbishop Mitty 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 27, 2024 at 1:31 PM PST

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 6th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast-paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college-educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

P.S. If you are someone who is thinking about going to law school after college, don't hesitate to ask for advice!! Always willing to chat about that, it really helped me when folks did that for me when I was in your shoes and I'd love to pay it forward.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Zaid Vellani Brooks Debate Institute 6 rounds

Varun Venkatesh Carlsbad High School 6 rounds None

Cherie Wang Magnolia 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 9:20 AM CST

i'm probably a pretty standard tech judge but please check for my opinions on things that might be important to the way you debate (ie theory, ivis, speed, docs, tko, tricks, ks, etc.)

I did PF at Westlake for 4 years (graduated 23) and qualled for TOC 3 times (kind of)

email cheriewang835@gmail.com. send CASE AND REBUTTAL docs (to everyone preferably but at least send to me)

almost every default here can be changed if you warrant that. e.g. if you forget to extend something in summary but warrant why extensions don't matter during final, i will disregard the lack of a summary extension. however if you say something racist you will not change my mind about if being racist should be allowed.

IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND SOMETHING say goodbye to it. if your opponents do not extend something please say something!! and then u don't have to respond to it.

conceded defense is sticky - if you don't frontline one of your contentions in second rebuttal don't go for it in summary. if ur first speaking u don't need to extend defense against a dropped contention. if second rebuttal drops one of the pieces of defense on a contention they do go for, i would like the first summary to explicitly extend the response but you could argue that you don't need it idc

PLEASE TIME SPEECHES cus i'm not going to. stop your opponents if they go 10+ over

things i like (order is prioritized):

speech docs/disclosing
bears trick
early weighing/collapsing
impact turns/defense
polls trick
cool arguments
wolf in sheeps clothing trick

things i don't like (in no particular order):

reading progressive arguments poorly
most IVIs (read my section on IVIs if u plan to read one)
going too fast for me
signposting poorly.
being offensive
the liar's paradox (and most other paradoxes)
not doing speech docs. if ur opponents doesn't want speech docs u don't have to send them, but if ur the team saying no speech docs i will dock speaks

tech>truth. i judge how i am directed to in round. my preferences will reflect in ur speaks but generally, read and do whatever u want and i will do my best to evaluate it

don't go too fast; i can only evaluate what i can flow.i will not pretend i heard stuff in rebuttal that was too fast for me.for reference u should top out ~900 words in constructive and that's being pretty generous. I DO NOT FLOW OFF DOC.

be nice or get 25s.

SIGNPOST. i do not flow things that aren't signposted. if there’s 100 different arguments and no one explains how they interact, they are all meaningless to me so i won't bother flowing them

u are extremely welcome to post round either verbally after round (unless tournament is running super late) or via email. i am happy to answer questions about the decision/strategy/etc. i do not expect teams to always agree with me

random things

my 2 biggest pet peeves are 1) fake norm setting and 2) wasting my time.

PLEASE DO NOT pad your time by reading the same responses with different cards multiple times. instead do weighing or make analytics i don't care if they are bad, i would rather flow that than another card saying the same thing.

hege args need real warrants too. also i will not like it if ur hege warrants are kinda racist.

if you read weighing and call it a prereq when it isn't actually one, i will not treat it like one.

i like analogies fine but not cliches (except for poking/feeding the bear i like those ones. generally speaking i like bears)

i don't believe in TKOs or 30 speaks theory and probably won't waive that

pf substance stuff

second rebuttal needs to frontline everything that they want to extend later. i would love to see some collapsing.

i have a decently high threshold for extensions but they don't need card names, just warrants and impacts. please don't go for more than one link/warrant when extending case if u don't have to. i really like being able to see strategy in every speech and largely decide speaks based on this.

i presume with my own coin flip unless told to do something else in round. i would love to be told to do something else in round. i will do literally everything i can think of to avoid presuming if no one tells me to presume, especially in a substance round.

warrant things

weigh things

extend things

IMPACT DEFENSE IS HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED IN PF. please read impact defense when someone reads a terrible impact

love a card heavy rebuttal (not as much as an analytics heavy one) but if i hear the same response with different cards a bunch of times it isn't going to trick me into thinking you read more than one response. i cannot stress how much it annoys me to hear a rebuttal with no strategy

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST

trigger warnings. they're getting their own section now

u don't need to read this section if u aren't reading/hitting tw and don't need a tw for case--generally, i believe trigger warnings should be read for graphic arguments that talk about traumatic subjects, that's all u need to know.

trigger warnings should have an opt out dont just list a bunch of triggering things prior to talking about them for 4 minutes.

trigger warnings have real impacts on safety that are key to preserve the balance between people reading arguments about serious issues and people not being triggered in a closed room for 60 minutes. i feel strongly that they should be read. if you read something graphic i will be extremely sympathetic to tw theory against u.

performative theory that pretends to set a good norm and does a bad job of it is one of my biggest pet peeves in debate and often actively harmful. please do not read trigger warning theory in front of me for no reason. please give good opt outs. if you are trivializing this issue i will still evaluate the round but i will tank your speaks.

IVIs

other prog stuff is below this. i need a section for IVIs sorry.

IVIs on bad ev or offensive behavior are totally fine. would love to evaluate both of those actually BUT U NEED TO ARTICULATE THEM CORRECTLY. if u want me to care about an issue and independently vote on it, u should care enough to build up that issue as an independent voter (what did they do wrong, why is it bad, why should i down them).

the two scenarios i described are the only ones where it makes sense to me to read an IVI instead of a shell. do not read disclosure in front of me and call it an IVI. do not read spec as an IVI. do not read T as an IVI. T is T.

i also believe that IVIs are often used as a way of doing more performative theory while skirting RVIs. please do not do that. i will tank your speaks forever. i am not forgiving on this issue.

theory

i love judging theory but i will take mediocre substance over bad theory any day (this does not refer to people who are new to reading theory all i'm saying is your brain should be on when you read theory no matter how advantageous it might be for you).

friv is great if you are chill and do a good job reading it.

i should never feel bad for your opponents if you initiate theory, especially friv. you should be the most polite person ever if you initiate theory. do not play dumb in cross fire. explain how to engage with the shell.

all parts of the shell + implication need to be extended in summary/final but not rebuttals.

going for RVIs/DTA/reasonability are cool strats that i think are underutilized in pf!

im a big fan of os disclosure. down to evaluate marginal misdisclosure shells if you can do a good job reading it.

my opinion is that disclosure is good but i won't hack for it if u can't defend it. content/trigger warnings are good on graphic args but i won't hack for it if u can't defend that.

tricks

don't really know what i'm doing but these are fun and i'll vote on them

don't really like paradoxes. i think polls is funny. eval after 1ac and gcd are ok. i dont know that many tricks

i need to see them on the doc! if i missed them, i will be a lot less willing to evaluate tricks and very open to hearing reasons the way the trick was read is unfair and should disqualify it. don't hide them in the card but the tagline is ok

please talk to me in round. if you don't talk to me before round i will probably just not vote on it.

Flora Wang Los Altos High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:10 PM PST

Email chain (yes): talk to me before round.

I debated (2020-2023), judged (many rounds), and coached (2023-2024) trad Lincoln-Douglas.

MLK Update: For me to be the best judge for you, 1) go slower than you usually would (it's been a while) and 2) assume I'm not familiar with the topic lit. Or in other words, treat me like a parent judge.

Overview

Call me “judge” in-round, thanks
Wear a mask if the tournament says you have to. I will vote where you tell me to, but I will not shake your hand.
Be ethical with speech times, prep time, and evidence. At the end of each speech, you are granted a “grace period” to finish your sentence, not to make a whole new argument. You are granted 4 minutes of prep (LD). Here is the NSDA Evidence Guide. Don’t steal prep by taking forever to find a card. Cheating is not cute or quirky, and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent as outlined by CHSSA/NSDA rules.
Be mindful of potential triggers and sensitive topics and DO NOT be offensive (racist, homophobic, sexist, the list goes on).

Traditional LD

I will not hesitate to drop anyone who chooses to make the round inaccessible (spreading out the opponent) or engage in other debate practices that would not be understandable to a reasonable person. This is non-negotiable.

Keep your off-time roadmap to less than 15 words. Please. Just tell me where to flow.
There’s a fine line between being cheeky and being annoying during cross. Feel free to do the former, not the latter. If you’re confused, ask.
Demonstration of strong topic knowledge is really impressive
An argument comprises a claim, warrant, and impact, not just a claim.
Write the ballot for me – tell me why you win.

Circuit LD

Send a speech doc and go slower than you usually do – listening to spreading makes me very tired. If I miss something, it’s nice to have the doc to reference. Slow down especially on signposting, taglines, and analytics.
I would prefer if the round remained related to resolution – things like friv theory and Ks are hard for me to vote on, though possible.
Avoid using heavy progressive debate jargon

Other Events

Treat me like I’m a parent judge. Prioritize clarity over speed, and explain the argument and reasoning to me. Assume I’m not familiar with the topic lit. Don’t be rude in crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

Chase Williams Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:14 PM EST

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

Cecilia Xi Saratoga HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 4:15 AM PST

Debate is fun (although I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not overly tech > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 230 words per minute works). Otherwise, I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200 words per minute).

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are even better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanisms, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF (collapse please) and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points). I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance (prefer not to judge)

Ts: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading Ts, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: no judging experience. Only spectated a few rounds. Hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to your ROB. If you really want to do Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), do stock Ks.

Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

Eman Yarlagadda Vista Del Lago High School 6 rounds

Vivek Yarlagedda Gunn Sr High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 5:37 PM CST

Debated for four years at Southlake Carroll, now a freshman at Stanford and a head coach at Gunn.

Please use viveky@stanford.edu to send clearly labelled email chains; ie., "TOC R7.1 Southlake Carroll RY v. Seven Lakes LM". Keep in mind that I care more about the cleanliness of my inbox than the quality of your speaks

Barkley Update

- Don't have in-depth knowledge on political dynamics in the Horn of Africa due to a break from topic prep; maybe over-explain anything squirelly.

- Said this for Glenbrooks, but make sure you're clear in both how you speak and how you weigh; I'm slowly becoming more interventionist in rounds where neither team is clear.

-I'll tank speaks if you're late, take a while to send evidence, or generally delay a round; sodon't be slow.

- Good for everything from anti-colonial kritiks to straight impact turns; would love to see either if the substance debate is going to be mid. Innovative theory shells would also be cool to see.

TL;DR

I'm very tech over truth but feel that the shift of PF to "Policy-lite" is leaving much to be desired in terms of warranting, evidence ethics, clarity, and more. Aspects of that shift however—speed, progressive arguments, evidence comparison, etc—can be great when executed how they were originally intended. Moreover, I urge you to keep rounds (even high level/stakes ones) lighthearted, kind, and hopefully funny. Debate's a game and games should be fun. With that,

- I'll handle any speed you throw at me as long as I have a doc (before speech + marked after), but please slow down in the backhalf.

- I'll evaluate any argument you read but urge you to—at minimum—read the cheat sheet below and skim the rest of my paradigm.

- Judge instruction is the single key to my ballot; slow down, explain the incomprehensible yap, and write my ballot for me.

- Extensions must include all parts of the argument, but I don't care if they are delineated, in order, or sacrificed in quality for the sake of efficiency.

- Cross-ex is binding; utilize concessions to your advantage in-speech and skip grand cross if it feels unnecessary (99% of rounds).

- I presume neg during policy topics to preserve the status quo and first during on balance topics to counter last-word bias.

- Speaks are determined off of strategy, norms, and vibes—in that order.

- Don't call me judge please.

Some people who influenced much of the beliefs below include: Coach Brown, Anbu Subramanian, and Nikhil Reddy.

Some of my favorite judges when I debated were: Gabe Rusk, Ishan & Ilan, Maddie Cook, P, and Quinn McKenzie.

‎

Cheat Sheet:

LARP - 1

Theory -1

Topical Kritiks - 2

Non-T Kritiks - 4

Tricks - 4

Substance

My favorite type of debate. I still actively cut prep, so there's a decent chance I will be more researched in the topic than you are. Finding niche areas of topic ground was always my favorite part of debating, so I'll reward innovation greatly as a judge and urge you to throw your best, most squirelly positions at me. However, this also means I'm more attune than most to bad attempts at unique arguments, low quality frontlines, and overall subpar understanding of one's prep. Specifically:

- I evaluate probabilistically, but will more than willingly vote on risk of a disad/solvency given sufficient weighing. Winning zero risk/terminal defense is key in lieu of very clean weighing comparison, which is rare nowadays. If a debate ends with both teams winning a risk of offense and there exists clashing/unresolved prerequisite/shortcircuit/jargon analysis absent clear metaweighing, then expect a decision far more grounded in truth than tech.

- Semantically, I strongly prefer timeframe and prereqs/shortcircuits over appeals to "probability" with regards to impact debates, but do what you must.

- Please signpost to some degree across side of the flow, contention name, and uniqueness/link/impact.

- The ultimate strat will always be quality hidden links; there's a chance I pick up on them in the 1AC/NC, but clearly delineate which link you're extending and the fact that your opponent dropped a link in the backhalf.

- Smart evidence comparison will be more effective in front of me than most—I like to reward in-depth knowledge of your cards and such analysis is often the differentiator in high-level/close rounds.

- Dumping 30 second contentions is fine by me, but if you don't have the prep knowledge to fill in the gaps later you'll lose to anyone competent.

- For framing, I think util is likely truetil, as it links-in and overwhelms most other frameworks when warranted correctly. However, I'm no extinction first hack and find dense structural violence and the various sub-variations to be convincing when debated well. In front of me, I'd recommend a deep understanding of your framing evidence, embedded weighing (aprioris, link-ins, etc), and pre-fiat implications. These arguments should be read in constructive and I have a very high threshold for excluding link-ins by any team responding to them.

‎‎

Evidence

I cut a lot of evidence and will likely read a lot during round. However, outside of clipping, I will not let any indicts or issues I find in a team's evidence sway my ballot unless it was brought up by the other team during the round. Regardless, I have many many thoughts on the state of evidence in PF:

- Use consistent formatting with a single font, legibile higlighting, and proper bolding/underlining for emphasis. Ugly docs won't sway my decision, but may influence your speaks.

- Use an email chain or Speechdrop for evidence exchange, not a Google Doc that will inevitably be unshared after the 2AR/NR. Prep stealing is a question of I know it when I see it and I will call you out for it.

- I believe paraphrasing is a sin and bracketing is disingenuous, but won't unilaterally punish either practice unless told to.

-Important evidence must have descriptive taglines; "Indeed," & "Empirically," are acceptable for filler cards, but not for your dense uniqueness claims or core link evidence.

‎‎

Theory

I really like good theory debates and I ran theory quite a lot. I'll vote on any shell with minimal bias creep or intervention, with one notable exception below. Beyond that, anything is fair game, even if some may call it "frivolous".

- DEFAULTS: no RVIs, yes OCIs, no Reasonability, yes DTD

- Here is my understanding as to how a RVI functions/implicates in round, please clarify any alternate definitions during speech: if a team wins no RVIs, conceded defense to a shell is not a reason to vote for their opponents, however, a conceded turn is still a reason to do so.

- I don't care much about shell extensions; a verbatim interp extension post-rebuttal and any semblance of standard + DTD extensions is enough for me to pull the trigger.

- I think there should be a lot more "conventional weighing" (think scope, magnitude, etc) done between voters and standards in theory debates that would make them far easier to evaluate and less tenuous than they currently are in PF.

- In close open-source v. full-text debates, I will err towards open-source good every time. Even if the team reading full-text convincingly wins on the flow,I will cap speaks at 26.Disclosing blocks of text negates any benefit of disclosure overall and the common standards in most full-text counterinterps are shallow excuses to prevent scrutiny of evidence and pre-round prepouts while trying to maintain an unfair advantage.

- A non-exhaustive list of interps I've hit/read/understand: topicality, disclosure and subsequent sub-variations, paraphrasing, round reports, bracketing, a-spec, womxn, vague alts, spec post/pre-fiat, spec framing, author quals, google docs, and comic sans.

- Trigger warnings should be a question of reasonability regarding violations.

‎‎

Kritiks

I will evaluate what I understand. That being said, I've ran and cut a good amount of topical Ks in my career and am decently comfortable evaluating them. However, given the docbot/backfile-dependent nature of most teams' strategies against these positions, I have a high threshold for the quality of evidence and execution of these arguments.

- I'm most familiar with set col, sec/militarism, fem/racial ir, cap, and eugenics. Don't go too far beyond these literature bases and if you do, over-explain.

-Proving a link and explaining solvency are the two most important things to pick up my ballot with critical strategies. Links are best when contextual to your opponents and unabashedly big-stick in nature. Alts should be thoroughly explained and should solve the entirety of what the K is critiquing. I don't believe ROTBs are entirely necessary, but do believe that some level of neg fiat is required to make Ks viable in PF (please no reject alts). K Affs should distinguish their solvency between fiating the resolution and having an additional alternative.

- For non-topical Ks,I truly believe that these arguments have a place in PF when done right by teams who know what they are doing. That being said, I am very convinced by disads to both the practices of using the ballot as a method of change and encouraging the insertion of personal experiences into debate.

‎‎

Miscellaneous

- Tricks and ad-homs are non-starters.

- Post-rounding is fine.

- Feel free to email me with any questions.

- vy

Raven Yatabe Fort Collins High School 6 rounds

Liang Zhou Troy High School 2 rounds None

Login to Tabroom

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2025 — Berkeley, CA/US

Varsity Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges