5th Annual Strake Jesuit Intramural RR
2024 — Houston, TX/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideYO FELLAS!!! It's me, Julian!
I'm hecka ready to do some judging, so let's get this show on the road.
I have 3 years of middle school congress experience, and I octafinaled nationals back in seventh grade; essentially, I know a thing or two.
My favorite band is eminem.
My highschool experience is unremarkable. I had a negative growth rate, going 3-3 at TFA State freshman year and 2-4 Sophomore year, so I quit debate and became a judge.
Strake Jesuit ‘26
Feel free to ask any questions before/after round
I'll eval anything on the flow, the exception being ad-homs/callouts
Tech > Truth but I like truth
Pref Sheet
LARP - 1
K - 2
Non-T Aff - 2
T - 2
Theory -3
Phil - 4
Trix - 4
IVI's - 5
Send Speech docs with cards.
+.5 speaks for no suit
I do speaks off strategy and clarity
Non-T Affs-
i like these debates
know what you're reading
probably lean towards T being true but good debaters can debate through it
LARP-
implicate offense
i love metaweighing when done well
No new "offensive overviews" [DA's] in 2nd rebuttal or ill crashout
K-
Affs get to weigh the case against K's unless K team contests [which they should]
Try to make it accessible by explaining during cx etc.
understand what you're reading.
T/Theory-
default DTD, CI's >, no RVI's
i think these's debates get overdone and can be boring to judge but I'll still evaluate whatever. high threshold for what is "friv" and I'll still evaluate.
NO RVI's does not mean you cannot lose on the theory page. You can still lose to an OCI [or a "turn" to the shell if they choose to defend the converse of the shell]. Winning RVI's means that the team responding to theory can win off winning terminal defense on the theory page.
Phil-
Phil can be nice to judge err on overexplanation for more complicated things
Tricks-
have fun, if you lose reading them L 25
IVI's-
Don't read these unless it's so blatant that it's obvious they did something abhorrent. Read an actual shell, or if you like blippy reasons to vote for you, read tricks.
hi im chris cheng
---FOR NO LIMITS---
-Try your best, its perfectly fine if you dont know what you are doing
-Start/Stop rounds
-please don't surrender to your opponent. there's usually always a way to win the round.
-please extend your framework
if you read the camp case I will fall alseep
----------------random snack prizes---------------
if you don't read the camp case ill buy you a snack from the concessions stand
if you read a Kritik/Theory/Tricks/Phil ill buy you 2 snacks from the concessions stand
------------------------------------------------------
---CONTACT---
clcheng27 at mail.strakejesuit.org
tech > truth
read whatever you want
ill evaluate anything but here is a list on things that I am most well knowledgeable on:
------------------
1 -- phil
1 -- k
2 -- tricks
3 -- theory
3 -- larp
traditional -- strike
----------------
DEFAULTS
---------------
-permissibility affirms
-presumption negates
-shells are dtd, no rvis
some specifics:
-----------
LARP
-----------
- weigh
- read whatever you want
-----------
K
-----------
- err on over-explanation for uncommon Ks / post modern stuff
- K tricks are fine
- win a link to the aff
- idk about judging k affs
-----------
TRICKS
-----------
- i like logcon
- anything that isnt eval or a spike should be explained
- ill evaluate 30 speaks spike
- tricks need a claim, warrant, and impact, and need to be extended for me to vote on them
-----------
T/THEORY
-----------
- no such thing as friv theory
- default c/i, dtd, no rvis
-----------
PHIL
----------
- explain phil terms
- do whatever u want
----------
TRAD/DENSE PHIL
----------
- trad is a no
- dense phil maybe if explained and warranted
----------
SPEAKS
----------
25 -- you surrendered/ did something bad / dropped the aff in 1nc
the rest depends on the round
have fun
In my 25th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit. Prior to that I worked as a public defender.Persuasion, clarity, and presentation matter to me. I have a workable knowledge on many progressive arguments, but my preference is traditional, topical debate. Because I don't judge much, it is important to speak clearly and articulate the things that you want me to pay close attention to. If you go too fast and don't follow this advice you will lose me. I will not vote off of something that I don't understand. You need to make my path to your ballot clear. I like certain types of theory arguments and will vote off of them if there is a demonstrated abuse (topicality, disclosure, etc.). My firm belief is that you should debate the topic assigned. I also am a big fan of disclosure. I think that it levels the playing field for all involved. Drops matter. Impacting is important. Giving clear reasons why you are winning offense is the easiest way to pick up my ballot.
*For all email chains - email to jcrist1965@gmai.comand strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org - include both*
Debate PF at Strake 2021-2025 - please add me to the doc: guodaniel3@gmail.com
For MSTOC LD:
Do what you do best - go as fast as you want and be respectful, kind, and fun!
Policy - 1
K - 2
Theory/T - 2/3
Phil - 5
Tricks - 5
I debate PF so err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T. Not good for high phil/extremely uncommon K. Please don't overadapt to me if it's a panel - just do what you do best!
PF:
Tech> Truth, go as fast as you want and read whatever you want.
Cleanest link into best weighed offense, but arguments must have coherent extensions - uniqueness, link, impact.
Impact Calc and Backhalf Thoughts: (Stolen from Ishan's Paradigm)
I assess probability largely based on if you are winning your argument. However, arguments don't necessarily start at 100%. You establish probability through evidence and explanation. Probability matters, especially when magnitudes are similar (e.g., extinction). If probability weighing becomes new defense, call it out.
Extensions are yes/no. Extend, definitely, but I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. If something is conceded, my threshold drops significantly. Nit-picky details become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically,there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.
Link turns without uniqueness are defense. Uniqueness responses can zero a turn's offense, but remember that the "turn" then becomes defense. Even then, generally speaking,link > uniqueness.
By default,I presume neg/con.
Not good for PF K's w/o alts, poor evidence ethics, or any sort of -isms
Add me to email chain - PMHablinski26@mail.strakejesuit.org
If this is for 2024, probably don't read progressive arguments on me unless it is general theory. Otherwise, I evaluate fairly standardly based on the flow.
Tech > Truth to an extent (ie my threshold for responses decreases as your argument gets more farfetched)
Speed - go whatever you want but be clear and DEF send a doc if above 250 (you should probably send one either way)
Substance -
- I evaluate in a tech manner
- Framing... prefiat is silly / I'll evaluate most framing arguments tho
- Second rebuttal should frontline or else the argument is conceded
- If you don't weigh you'll probably lose the round (strength of link isn't real and probability better be implicated very well)
- I'll evaluate whatever you give me but make sure to break the clash or else your argument is obv less easy to access
Progressive -
I'll evaluate most shells (think para, disclo, tw, and t) - I'd advise y'all against reading friv theory (if there is genuine abuse like misdisclosure y'all should probably read a shell if comfortable)
IVIs are generally ok if obvious but otherwise prob make it a shell
Evidence challenges are fine - just has to be on true grounds
Try not to read Ks on me - I'll probably screw you
Speaks -
+.5 if you weigh in rebuttal or attack in 2nd constructive
If you bring me food auto 30s unless... (see below)
If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, or overly rude I'll give you an L25
Auto 25 speaks if you're silver sumith
Hi I’m Campbell
Do your best :)
Hi! I’m Finney a senior at Strake Jesuit, been doing pf ever since freshman year.
Add me to the email chain: FGHaire25@mail.strakejesuit.org
Tldr: tech>truth, tabula rasa. Read what you want but I can’t guarantee I will be able to understand it. The quickest way to my ballot is good weighing and defense. Fine with speed as long as you send a doc with cut cards and you must go slow on analytics. Defense isn’t sticky. Quality>quantity. The best rounds are ones where I don’t have to think about my decision. In the back half, write my ballot for me. Be very clear with signposting. I prefer a substance debate with good clash but I won't stop you from doing what you want. If u are going to fast in the back half if I don’t flow what you say then you were going to fast. You can spread a case extension only if you send a prewritten form of the extension you read, especially in k rounds.
Comments and opinions
It is the judge’s job to do their best to adapt to the debaters but with that being said I do feel more confident judging straight topical rounds. That’s what I feel the best at evaluating but I am willing to judge whatever including ks theory and whatever you can come up with.
Every single thing you read or go for needs warranting. The warranting doesn’t have to be true but if there is no warrant then you’re just saying nothing and I will not vote for it. Threshold for warrants goes down if something is fully dropped or the flow is supper messy.
I will always look at the weighing first to see who’s winning that and then look at who’s winning links. I love love love link weighing, meta weighing, uniqueness weighing, and any other weird weighing mechanisms.
The only thing that can be new after summary is weighing. I will evaluate new weighing in second final if it’s the first time weighing is read. If your opponents try to read new defense and call it probability weighing then call them out and I won’t vote on it.
Most probable implementation of the resolution isn’t real. It’s just excuse to read a plan in pf and I will evaluate it if your not called out for it but like…
Pf has really bad evidence ethics. Call out your opponents for terribly miss cut cards and if I think it’s bad enough I will just scratch them from my flow.
Being able to show cut cards quickly is a must. If you hold up the round for over 3 minutes trying to find a card I will doc your speaks.
I’ll flow off a doc if I really need to. I would greatly prefer not to and there’s a decent chance my flow will be a little worse. You also probably don't need to go that fast.
Theory
I have an okay amount of experience with it and know how to evaluate it.
Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I can be convinced otherwise. Default yes RVIs.
Ks
Not very much experience tbh but do what you want. If I look confused it’s because I am. Slow down on extensions and over-explain the k if you want me to make the best decision possible.
speaks
Start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy and if you seem nice or funny. If you are spreading at a completely unintelligible speed to the point where it’s almost impossible to prove if u clipped, I will prob drop your speaks. If you do really annoying stuff like read theory on freshman or counter plans in 2nd rebuttal that are just new contentions, I will vote for them sure but expect a low point win.
racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. is an auto L and the lowest speaks I can give.
ask questions and post round if you want.
Good luck!
strake debater
have fun and do whatever
put me on the email chain-sjhasan27@mail.strakejesuit.org
I will vote on areas of resolved clash rather than resolving clash myself, unless I have to. I am not concerned with speaking. So long as you are clear, I will give speaks based on strategy. I have some experience with progressive debate. I am comfortable with theory, having run it a decent number of times. Friv theory is fine, but if read against novices or teams that clearly don't know how to respond to theory I may drop speaks but will still evaluate it. I'm more uncertain on Ks. Read them if you want and I'll try to evaluate it, but I can't guarantee I will do so correctly. I am familiar with securitization and kind of familiar with rage alts. I dislike discourse alts, so make sure that you actually win the alt if you go for one.
Collapsing is good. You should not go for multiple contentions unless they are easy to frontline and quick to extend.
Rebuttals can be blippy if you implicate well in the back half. Tech over truth for all responses.
Good weighing gives you a massive advantage if you have any access to your case. Please do link weighing--it is the easiest path to the ballot. If weighing is very blippy on both sides with little comparison, I will go truth over tech to break clash if there is no other way to evaluate the round.
Speaking faster than 250 wpm is a risk if I don't have a speech doc. If you go above 300, please give clear extensions in the back half.
Email chains are good. If you are using them or speech docs, add me to them. LAHolmes25@mail.strakejesuit.org
I will only look at evidence if a team tells me to, or if there is heavy unresolved debate over it at the end of the round.
Read tricks if you want but implicate clearly in the back half. If both teams read tricks, I'll give both teams 30s. If only one team reads tricks, the team that read tricks loses speaks. I have a low threshold for responses if only one team reads tricks.
In egregious cases, I will intervene to evaluate inclusion over tech.
Strake Jesuit PF Debater
email chains are cool: rqli26@mail.strakejesuit.org
check out the debate hotline on Instagram, very good organization in promoting a better debate space, highly recommend
This paradigm's pretty empty, don't be afraid to ask more in-depth questions before round
Speaks
Any tournament: Any good pop culture reference (I might not catch it tho) that is naturalin speech (don't force it) gets my utmost respect and gets 30 speaks.
If you tell me a good joke before round you also get a 30.
For team events, this is not applied to the whole team.
In person: Bring me anything from the concession stand and the whole team gets 30 speaks
Online: Show me your pet on camera (preferably a cat) and I will give everyone in the round 30 speaks
General
Don't yell during cross and especially not grand cross T_T
Debate is just a game at the end of the day. Everyone's a nerd, so don't take anything too serious
I look to weighing first
If spread please send doc. Send doc just in general tbh
Signposting is a must and a roadmap would be helpful
10 second grace period overtime. I won't flow during grace, but if you keep talking after that speaks will plummet. 10 should be more than enough time to wrap up, anything more than that is absurd.
Substance
Tech>Truth, but if your tech argument is absolutely ridiculous, the threshold of responses will not be high. At least try to make realistic scenarios.
Theory
Go for it, but friv shells=low threshold
Default yes RVI's
Try to avoid theory, contact your opponents before round please
If I know a team's coach does not allow for disclosure, I will not vote on the shell. I know the struggle of having a strict coach and hitting a disclo shell every round for something out of your control is not cool. I trust you, please don't lie. Disclosure is a good norm, so do it if you can.
Kritiks
Run at your own risk
I'm not afraid to vote on it if you're cooking, but you will have to be winning very clearly, not a big K fan.
Tricks
My threshold for responses is breathing
Misc
All speaks will be above 28 unless you do something very bad (racism, sexism, etc.) tbh just do one of the things mentioned above for 30's
Treat your opponents with respect, I will drop you if you are a terrible person, even if you are winning. There's a fine line between confident/aggressive/hostile, and aggression will get your speaks dropped at the least.
If everyone agrees we can skip grand cross for an extra minute of prep
I have 2 years of debate experience!
- Did LD and switched to PF
- Went to NSD
Couple rules
- don’t ask me to disclose I will not
- Be clear when you speak and sign post well
How I’ll evaluate the round
- I evaluate turns
- Flay judge
- Point out the flaws in arguments but extend it!!! If you don’t extend it throughout the whole round I won’t count it
- Roadmaps while you speak. I won’t know where to flow if you don’t tell me where.
- If you treat me like someone that has no experience and actually explains everything properly you have my vote!
Thats all! Good luck guys and girls :)
Strake Jesuit ‘26
Technical ability to defend an argument precedes the actual truth of said argument. Debate is a technical speaking activity that requires concessions to be taken as truth; however, absent explicit concessions and/or dropped arguments, zero risk and the opposite are extremely difficult to achieve. Despite this, even dropped arguments can and should have their implications debated out. Sweeping claims of anything rarely exist.
Arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and implication to have meaning within a debate round. I have a low threshold for a warrant: anything except self-proclaimed truths. However, subpar arguments and warrants require equally subpar arguments or warrants to answer. Additionally, arguments that contravene basic understanding will generally require extreme amounts of warranting and explanation. I will only evaluate arguments and/or issues discussed within the speaking times, written on my flow, and explained and implicated to my understanding; nothing else is a factor in my decision.
email RTrivedi25@mail.strakejesuit.org the word "Thence" for 30 speaks! Show reciepts!
Tech>Truth this is my 4th year of debate
Substance-1
- Spark :(
Theory-3 (I believe you should OS and not paraphrase)
K-4
Trix-5
Affiliation: Strake Jesuit
Treat me like a traditional judge with an emphasis on clear communication. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.
Please do not assume I know the jargon you use. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Signposting and crystallization are hugely helpful. Telling me where to start on the flow is a great idea. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend through every speech. I want to see lots of weighing: rounds without weighing are very difficult to adjudicate. Make it easy for me to vote for you.
I think David Kennedy's paradigm adequately sums up my thoughts on this whole "judging" thing
Strake Jesuit '25
did PF debate for 3 years
tech > truth
U can run theory, i dont rrly know how to evaluate other prog arguments.
Speaks-
Auto 30 if you email - rmerchant25@mail.strakejesuit.org "thence" and SHOW ME
i start at a 25 and go up and down from there, if i think u spoke rrly well u might even get a 27 !
if you do cross in a funny accent i will give u +1 speaker points
if u bring me food auto 30s ... for further plz refer to rehan merchants paradigm i agree w him 100%
Strake Jesuit ‘26
Tech > Truth - I will strictly default to arguments on the flow and refrain from injecting biases into the debate. I will not carve out exceptions for certain arguments. However, I do have more experience with certain arguments over others.
Comfortable with policy, k, theory, tricks. Overexplain with phil heavy frameworks as I am not fairly comfortable evaluating those.
Concessions don’t substitute mediocre extensions. Offense is generated and clash is broken off of depth of explanation.
Defaults
PnP negates
Yes judge kick
CI, No RVIs, DTD on condo and T, DTA on others.
metatheory > t = theory > everything else
15 Bids in LD
Won Emory, Texas, and TFA State. Broke at TOC 3x.
2 Gold Bids in PF
nwei24@mail.strakejesuit.org
Read mostly pseudo-topical Asian K affs, Set Col, Theory, Phil, Impact Turns, and Process CPs.
I reward innovative strategies and positions.
I consider myself to be a flex debater.
K debaters should pref me if they are highly technical.
Probably a quarter of my K Aff rounds ended up being a 1AR restart.
In policy debates, risk starts at 0 and goes up. My bar for warrants are high.
Comfortable with advanced counterplan competition.
No such thing as friv theory.
(bolded stuff is the td;lr)
Hey I'm Winston!
I'd like to be on the email chainswtwu26@mail.strakejesuit.org
I’m a junior at strake and this my 3rd year debating
If I can't understand it I can't evaluate it
Tech>Truth,
Please have cut cards
Don't be mean or a bigot
If u have a question just ask
I can vote on anything that’s warranted and extended
I'll vote off of any argument as long as it's warranted and extended through
(the threshold for responses to intrinsically harmful args i.e. death good, __-ist good, Xenophobia good, is pretty low...)
I can handle speed (also past 250 words/min-ish and i start to blip a little)
if u go too fast i will say "clear"
Open CX is fine, skipping gcx is fine, flex-prep is fine
Auto 30s, or slightly lower, I'll give speaks out mostly on strategy (20s/25s based on some exceptions below tho)
extending is the easiest path to the ballot
You should probably do these to be successful: (in this order preferably but doesn't matter) it makes evaluating pretty easy and clean, but I believe that no round is every fully clean ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Extend: re-explain ur main arguments (Uniqueness, Link, IL, Impact)
Frontline: Defend ur main argument by responding to the opponents' responses (or u can extend conceded offense and implicate that)
Weigh:
Basically just doing comparisons between your impacts and your opponent’s impacts
ill pref pre-reqs/short circuits/link ins--> Timeframe--> Magnitude or Scope or Probability
true probability (if done right, aka actual analysis) could be pretty effective
weigh your linkweighing, since it's basically just another argument
weighing is lowk the most important part of a round (Probability or clarity of link/strength of link is a little fake since its just basically how conceded your argument is)
”we’re the best link into x impact” when both teams are going for the same impact is very underutilized in debate and I think it’s pretty good
metaweighing is underutilized in pf, esp try or die>timeframe or timeframe>try or die, "reject high magnitude impacts" could be effective but no one does it correctly
Attack: Extend conceded defense (Turns, terminal defense, Impact defense,) and weigh/implicate as well
Weighing and attacking on the opp side of the flow are prolly the main paths to the ballot, double turns that you make on your flow or conceded case works as well
Going for turns is funny
Sticky defense is fake, extend the main offense/defense ur going for in summary and FF for me to eval
pls backline
For new weighing and new responses, I'll give some leniency for them. It's okay in first/2nd final only if the opps made new weighing in 2nd summ/1st FF
Postround me if u want
Theory:
I can count the amount of actual theory rounds I’ve had on one hand and none of them have been very good
I can probably evaluate a theory round but I’m not the best judge
speaks will be lowered to ~28.5 if any theory arguments are read cuz I dislike judging these rounds
TKOs are fine for any type of round but im not great at eval; if ur right and your opps have no path to the ballot, u get W30s, if ur wrong; L20s
Clipping is an L20
ethan (he/him) - go follow the debate hotline !!!
pf paradigm
- tech>truth
- please signpost
- substance>prog
- please set up an email chain
- pleasepleasepleaseplease weigh, tell me which side to vote for
- default 1st speaking team
- if ur running high level prog arguments, you need to be able to PROPERLY EXPLAIN IT and answer my questions about it, im really stupid if I don't understand ur argument IM NOT VOTING FOR IT
other stuff
- idk that much about other events- treat me like a flay/lay
- auto 30s for any beyonce doja or kpop reference, +speaks if u make me laugh
- dont be exclusionary - no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc
dont take debate super seriously
"debate is a game" ok??? games are meant to be fun - dont take it too seriously