Bowie '24, Trinity '28 (hopefully), did 4 years of PF, got 1 silver bid and state qualed 2x, currently on Trinity debate team

gbarden05@gmail.com

tech>truth

Everything below is stuff where I think my stance differs from the "norm" or there isn't an agreed norm. I've tried to condense this as much as possible in a (probably futile) effort to get more people to read it before round. I hate judging what I consider bad rounds and love good ones so I try to update my paradigm regularly as my thoughts change. If you have questions please ask I'm happy to answer. Please ask for feedback after round if you want it, I'll try my best to get it on the ballot but I can only type so fast.

In my view it is my job to vote for the side that debates best, seeing as I believe the first-speaking team is generally at a disadvantage in PF that means I will presume for them.

TLDR: Terminalize your impacts, links>weighing, extend links for turns, much better at judging theory than ks, cut your cards, fine with speed just send doc, if you're doing anything a bit odd I probably have a section of my paradigm that corresponds to it, please please please read it

January '25: I've written cases and blocs, and read probably 1/3 of the cases disclosed on the wiki so I'll have a pretty decent knowledge of the topic

Terminalization-

I'm putting this at the top since it's one of the most weirdly common issues I've seen. The only impact that exists in a round without framework is death, and maybe poverty/starvation. Nuke war and recession are not impacts. The EFFECTS of these things are impacts, but if you don't list the effects there is no impact. I will generally not accept new impact terminalization or warranting after the speech where the impact was read. Unterminalized impacts overcome presumption and not much else.

Weighing-

I think severity is underutilized and can be very persuasive, at least on pov v death debates. Probability is fake, saying your opponent's impacts are unlikely is in reality just defense. I've only ever seen probability used to either say your opponent's impacts won't happen but you're not really sure why, or to bring up new defense and I won't vote on either. Using specific defense as risk mitigation is the only time probability weighing should occur, but I can't remember ever seeing this in PF. Defense against new weighing done in second summary is generally the only new argument I'll accept in final.

It doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning the link to it. However, if both sides win their links and only one side weighs, my ballot will be very simple.

Speed/flow-

For constructive I flow off the doc and after that I generally flow by ear (but you should still send a doc)

Whenever you move to a different sheet, contention, subpoint, or argument you should be clearly telling me, especially when you're going fast. I promise making one less response is worth me flowing the others correctly.

If the round is slow I'll flow authors if it's not I probably won't, keep that in mind when referring back to evidence, "first rebuttal card on C1" will usually be easier for me than " their Smith 22"

This is counter-intuitive but if you are clear then I'm willing to flow off the doc to fill in the gaps, if not I will only flow what I understand as I don't think you should be limited by my pen or comprehension speed. If you can read 350wpm and be clear I'll make sure I get it all on my flow. If you can't read 250wpm clearly I'm not going to use your speech doc to clear things up. I'll clear you twice before I give up. If you read analytics not on the doc slow down and make it very clear that you're not reading from the doc anymore.

If you want to argue that you can't understand more than 250, 275, etc wpm because of a hearing disorder I expect you to be able to explain why a speech doc doesn't suffice and how you concluded that you cannot understand past that threshold. If you want to argue that you shouldn't have to debate at spreading levels because of a speaking disorder I'll be much more sympathetic but I expect some sort of evidence for either, just like any other argument.

Evidence- Send all cards with tags and cites before they are read, in the order they are to be read, as well as any analytics you have written down but I don't expect all analytics to be on the doc. I will not be happy if you read a dozen analytics off your computer and then claim they were all extemped, especially for more prog stuff. Taking a bit of time to send the doc is fine, taking time to get the doc in order or whatnot is prep. Word or pdf only.

Paraphrasing is bad, I won't consciously hack against it as long as you at least have a version with semi-cut cards you can supply but I'm definitely biased against it.

A hyperlink without a card and text base isn't evidence, if you want to find something mid-round to read you better cut it mid-round too.

If I catch you clipping I'll down you. Don't ever run clipping theory unless you have evidence. If I caught the clipping I'll vote on it regardless of if it is brought up, if I didn't then I don't want you to spend time on an argument you can't verify.

Extensions-

I never need rebuttal extensions. Any argument you want to be evaluated must have a coherent extension of it. That doesn't mean it has to be super long or sophisticated, just present. The less contentious an issue is in the round the lower my threshold for an adequate extension of it. I'm more reluctant to discount something as not extended well enough if it isn't brought up that the extensions were inadequate. Make sure to extend your opponent's uniqueness, links, and impacts if you're going for a turn. I only need an argument to be extended in one summary speech and one final focus. If your opponent extended a contention in first summary that you have a turn on, you just need to extend the turn in second summary, not the entire contention.

K's-

Experience: 10 or so rounds in PF, another 15ish including CX

Currently reading cap on the aff and neg so I'll be the most familiar with that, probably some knowledge of most other ks but not much so don't assume I know anything

Due to my lack of k experience, I don't have much preference on how you run a k, I'll vote on just about anything that's explained and warranted. I'll judge kick the alt if you tell me to. Slow down on analytics if you want me to flow them and SIGNPOST. I don't care much about long overviews and would prefer you just spend more time on the line by line. I won't vote on killjoy, just read any other alt.

Theory-

Experience: 30ish rounds pf and another 10 or so in cx

Slow down for analytics especially if there isn't a doc, I need pen time

Default competing interps and yes RVIs for turns but not defensive args

I greatly prefer the CX standard for theory extensions, which is roughly that you do not need to extend irrelevant parts of the debate, compared to what seems to be becoming the norm in PF. If your opponent is not contesting the violation, I don't care if you explicitly extend it. The same is true for paradigm issues and your interpretation. The only exception is standards you're going for and dtd/dta always need an extension, as I think this is the equivalent of extending a link and impact.

Theory can be read in any speech so long as it is immediately after the violation, but anything starting in second summary or later I will only evaluate based on reasonability

Speaks capped at 27 if you don't send the exact text of the interp before the speech

Biases-

Disclosure is probably good, disclosure theory is whatever. If a big school runs a small schools standard against a small school my ballot will be very short. I love to see must-disclose rebuttal ev read against teams that disclose constructive but not rebuttal, I have no idea how only disclosing constructive became standard practice. No bias either way on disclosing tags or analytics. If you disclose full text, cites only, etc, and run disclosure theory I despise you.

I generally do not think content warnings are necessary but if you win it I'll vote for it. If you think an argument might be triggering to some people I'm skeptical of whether you should be reading it at all, but this represents an extreme minority of cases.

Tricks-

Experience: 3 or so rounds

If I can understand the trick after it is read without prior knowledge, I will be willing to vote on it. If I have no idea what you are talking about I won't vote on it, regardless of whether it is conceded. I recognize that it is very hard to predict what I will and won't understand and do not care. My bar for responses to tricks is based on how inane they are, but it will never be high.

Cross- Cross is binding so I'll try to pay attention. Skipping grand and using it to prep is fine, although in more complicated rounds I think it can sometimes be a detriment to everyone involved. I don't love open cross but it's not a big deal. Flex prep is always fine

Random stuff-

Don't run death or misery good, if it takes you longer than 30 seconds to preflow do it before round, don't steal prep, number responses, and extend by number if you can, I'll literally love you

I only care about the roadmap to get my sheets in order, you don't need to tell me anything else

If you're the last flight post round me all you want, I'm a debate nerd and will be happy to defend my decision until I get bored, just keep it decently civil

I'll generally give 29+ if I think you could/should break, and 29.5-30 if I thought there was very little you should've done differently. I usually put very little thought into the speaks I give and am more concerned with my RFD and feedback

If I'm looking at you during your speech I am not flowing and you are probably either going slower than you need to, faster than I can understand, saying something stupid, or saying something I don't understand

I think well-prepped impact turns and well-warranted hyper-specific frameworks are absurdly underutilized in PF, and this was definitely my bread and butter when I debated. I read straight turns on terrorism, nuke war, disease, climate change, heg, prolif, inflation, recession, trade, debt, jobs, oil spills, deforestation, biodiversity, green tech, democracy, AI, cyberattacks, space col, FDI, foreign aid, food prices, populism, innovation, cartels, court clog, and probably other stuff I forgot in my last 2 years of PF, and had a far higher win percentage than otherwise. I probably wouldn't recommend a lot of those now, but I think at a minimum it can often be worth considering, especially given how terrible most impact cards nowadays seem to be.

Novice-Don't do anything too whacky, it's not what novice is for, everything else from above still applies but just do your best

LD- I don't know the speech times or norms beyond very basic ones, since I don't know the norms at all I'm probably even more tabula rasa here than for PF

I don't care if you read a value or criterion, if you do make it matter in the round in some way, don't just read it for the sake of reading it

CX- I did UIL CX twice I think and have done two NDT-CEDA tournaments, same deal as LD- I don't know most of the norms so I'm fine with you doing anything if you can justify it, please read my section on speed

Call me Akhil. Westwood '22

Important

1) If you plan on going fast, start at like 70% speed and ramp up from there. Slow down on tags and pls pls pls number your responses.

2) Don't assume I'm caught up on the meta of topics, explain acronyms and do the necessary work.

3) I care about rounds starting on time. Please come to rounds already preflowed and ready to begin. Flight 2s should ideally already have email chains set up with the Aff/Neg ready to be sent out.

4) I want to be on the email chain- akhilbhale@gmail.com

Send a compiled doc of cut cards that you will be reading BEFORE your speech. This means you should create an email chain and send your docs as attachments in the email, preferably not in the body. Sending a link to a Google Doc is a no-go; download the Google Doc as a Word document and attach it to the email instead.

Miscellaneous

I'm somewhat stubborn with speaks and will probably average around 28.5-29 . Receiving anything above necessitates a combination of good strategy, reading from cut cards (whenever evidence is first introduced), and disclosing broken positions.

Considering this is an evidence-based activity, good evidence, and its surrounding ethics matter to me. Cut and read good evidence.

Flex prep and tag-team crossfires are fine. Skip grand cross if everyone agrees too. Please don't steal prep, I will notice. Your pens should be down and your fingers off your computer if you're not prepping.

Every claim needs to be warranted the first time it's introduced for you to go for it later. I keep a pretty clean flow and will notice if there are incomplete or missing warrants.

The second rebuttal should frontline everything on the argument they go for and start the collapse debate. I care about good frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. There's a fine line between lazy frontlining and efficient frontlining. Defense IS NOT sticky but my threshold for first summary defense extensions is a lot lower if the 2nd rebuttal goes for everything on case.

Weighing [ :( ]. In the wise words of Evan Burkeen- "I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me." If you're going for a "link-in", I need a reason why your "link-in" outweighs their impact standalone.

I have a decent threshold for extensions. This encompasses everything- any offense, defense, or argument you want to be evaluated must have a coherent extension of it. This doesn't mean that it has to be super long or sophisticated, just present.

Link turns need to have uniqueness attached to it. For example, if the aff says HSR makes Democrats win the midterms, to link turn this the neg has to win that HSR makes Democrats lose AND that Democrats are winning the midterms now.

Read impact turns, they're fun. I don't need an extension of the link scenario.

Kicking turns by conceding no-links requires an explanation of why the no-link kicks out of the turn. Absent an explanation, the team reading the turn can go for it in the next speech.

I'm fine with some levels of sarcasm/pettiness/trolling- it's funny but don't be mean to novices.

I vote neg absent offense.

Theory

Most open to hearing disclosure and paraphrase theory but curious to see what other violations you can extrapolate. Personally think disclosure (open source) is good and paraphrasing is bad but obviously won't hack for these arguments.

Not voting on TW/CW/Opt-out theory.

Uninterested in hearing arguments about new or novice debaters not having to disclose/cut cards, don't compete in Varsity if that's the case. I default to competing interpretations, exact text of the interp and (no?) RVIs. The no RVIs debate has always been confusing to me and it really depends on the CI being read. I.e if the interp is "must read from cut cards" and the CI is "must read paraphrased cards", the CI team should obviously get to win if they win their interp. For other CIs that are not competitive, probably default to no RVIs.

Shells must be read after the first instance of the violation. There are no limits on this- you can read paraphrase theory in 1st summary if 2nd rebuttal is the first instance of paraphrased cards.

I will be very happy if you read Topicality with a good definition card and can articulate a context-specific violation.

Not a stickler for theory extensions, just allocate the time elsewhere and do the necessary work on the standard/weighing,

Kritiks

Probably not the best for Kritiks but have decent exposure to them. Pretty familiar with generics like Cap and Security but will do my best to understand/judge other literature. Please clearly delineate links to the Aff and explain the alt/rotb/rotj.

I'd rather you not spread through your prewritten extensions and instead engage with the line by line.

K affs- I probably err neg on T/Fw but I think an Aff strategy of impact turns against impacts like fairness, and a durable CI makes voting Aff substantially easier.

This is still kinda incomplete and I'll add more things as I remember but if you have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out to me via email (it should be hyperlinked above).

tech > truth

run whatever

any speed

I'm not the best with Ks but I'll try my best to evaluate it.

Send speech docs (ideally with cut cards)

email me for concerns/questions: rboddeti4@gmail.com

I'll disclose after the round if the tournament lets me.

You can post round I won't get mad or dock speaks I promise.

For a longer paradigm, I agree with everything in Aamir Kutianawala paradigm.

Add westwoodpfdocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Vista Ridge '22 I UT '26

I competed for two years in LD and for 2 years in PF in high school.

Before Round

• Put me on the chain please: kalicarrier26@utexas.edu
• feel free to ask me any questions you may have

In Round

• I am a tech over truth judge which means I'll buy whatever argument is argued the best. For example, in the context of the round, I will believe the earth is flat if you can effectively prove to me so.

• Well-run frameworks are valuable, preferably introduced and expanded upon in earlier speeches; if no framework is given I will default to util
• I do not necessarily evaluate CX heavily but please keep it respectful and productive for your sake
• In the 2nd rebuttal, establish a framework or the beginning of one; don't just re-extend, address and engage with opponents' arguments.
• Defense isn't sticky, so extend; The summary should go beyond repetition, interact with opponents' arguments, and focus on key arguments for the round.
• In the FF, narrow down the round to 1 or 2 key voters with thorough extensions; overcomplicating weakens arguments.
• If running progressive arguments, adapt them to the format of the debate and ensure clarity; speech docs are appreciated.
• I am comfortable evaluating K's, just make sure they fit into the format of the debate and maintain clarity.
• If you run theory as a sole voting issue, persuade me to drop the debater; abusive or unfair theory won't be rewarded.
• Weigh your arguments, especially with conflicting evidence. Please do not make me have to interpret your evidence for you.

Extra

• Be respectful to everyone in the round.
• Any racist, homophobic, discriminatory, and/or derogatory speech will not be tolerated and will automatically result in me voting you down with 25 speaks.

enjoy debating y'all!

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Heights High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.

If I'm judging you in PF:bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire, and coach a variety of debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them.Please don't send cards in the body of emails; Word docs only. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• I spent much of my career coaching policy debate, so I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Email chain/questions: tcrivella@me.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

__________________________________________________

I'm Tyler Crivella, current freshman at UTD and former Seven Lakes High School ('24) competitor. I have competed in every event NSDA offers except POI and DUO. Currently coaching and judging mainly national circuit debate tournaments.

Loud sounds, eating, chewing gum, sniffling, gaveling, and other sounds will down you. I have hearing disabilities and your articulation and reasonable (but not overbearing) projection are crucial to my participation. If I put headphones on, do not adjust to speak louder, it means you are too loud and you should likely adjust.

__________________________________________________

Debate:

TLDR: You do you-- I'll vote for whatever you tell me. Be kind.

On logistics, you should do the following: respect tab pronouns, show up on time, don't paraphrase, and send speech docs quickly after prep time stopping. Email chain, please. Flip and send a test for the email chain to both emails by posted round time, with or without me in the room. I always prefer docx > paste in email > pdf > Google Doc. If you do Google Doc, you better pray I don't catch you live adding new cards.

On speed, I can handle speed in person, but I'm not flowing off the speech doc. Do articulation warm-ups before round because I need to actually hear letters—PFers can suck at enunciation sometimes.

On general thoughts,I usually will time speeches with an alarm and stop flowing the second it starts ringing. Stealing prep is bad. Knocking when speech time ends is bad. I will keep time and down speaks if your opponents are over/stealing so you don’t need to get mean in round if it’s happening. I evaluate the round based on only arguments in the round. Cards with one word are not cards. The warrant debate is something that I value more than most judges; still impact weigh but don't drop your delinks in the back half. I'm more than happy to vote for a K if the link is clear. You do you-- I'll vote for whatever you tell me. Warrant your extensions/turns/voters in back half because I will not vote just off a card saying it happens. Also, pet peeve: don't tell me you're "going to get to something" ever. That wastes time and ruins my flow; applies to CX or speeches.

On speaker points, I care about the technical moves in round rather than your "vibes" unless those vibes are trash. This looks like making the right collapse, answering all the offense, not reading red cards or needing to recut the constructive, not speaking over time, etc. About 10% of the rounds I judge end in me giving a sub-26.5 because of truly terrible aggression in CX. That's a bad trend and you should be conscious of that in your round.

PF: I am more than happy to vote off of theory arguments or Ks-- you obviously must win them but I can and have voted for them. I don’t think you should read any more than three contentions. If you spread and your articulation is bad or you read two words off a card, I probably won’t flow it and it’ll have been a loss of your time. I understand that you might be tired after all these rounds, but I am really a fan of dedication/enthusiasm. I know this is PF but you need to cite a warrant on your offense if you want it to be a voter in back half of the round. On this, extensions need to happen in the back half if you want to get my ballot. Obviously, please weigh. I will only use the metrics provided in the round and use as minimal judge intervention as possible. Tech over truth but the less truthful you are, the less the burden for responses.

CX: I try to be Tabula Rasa. Cool with Ks and T, but I don't have a very familiar understanding of a lot of the niche literature. If you cannot explain the K in plain English in cross, I'll likely drop that sheet of paper direct to the bin and bump your speaks down too. I think Ks are super fun but newer teams need to be given a chance at beating them—empathy and respect over aggression in CX goes a long way. Check hearing disabilities above if you’re thinking about a performance shell. I can handle speed but I'm not flowing off the speech doc. Tech over truth but the less truthful you are, the less the burden for responses.

For negative teams, I feel most comfortable voting in this order (DA, K, Case > CP > T), but believe that you should run the offs that work best for the round. Strategically, all are important. I feel that negative teams drop case too often and willingly.

LD:I honestly don't have a ton of LD experience. I did a few rounds as a novice, but the event is obviously deeper than that. I'll likely evaluate the round like a policy round but with a framing debate. Consider reading my above paradigms.

Congress:

Generally, I have very mixed opinions on this event. I did this event for about a year and a half and ended it by giving an equity speech complaining about accessibility at TFA Finals--Congress has not improved much since that speech. I generally care more about contributions to "the flow," structure of speeches, and procedure more than the average judge. If you are reading this, you're likely the type of debater that will do better in my rounds.

Also, evidence is not something that you simply can fabricate in my rounds. I might call for a card; I might down you if you make up a statistic; I might take an evidence concern to tabroom. At locals, I probably won't look favorably on a student-led evidence challenge, but at a national circuit or final at a regional tournament, I may feel inclined to hear an evidence protest. Here's the link to the rules on evidence and procedure from the Harvard tournament, which I see as a generally good Congress tournament. Follow the process present and share with my email at the top of paradigm. Again, though, this generally does not go well and should not be seen as a means to climb the ranks but rather a means to check unfair ethics.

Speaking: I prefer two point speeches but I can ride with one argument speeches too. Refutation is a must if you are not giving the first three speeches and even those one should have some. Questioning is not a screaming match. More speeches ≠ better speaker. The "PO" and "two speech" meta is bad. I would rather the round hit four bills with good, short, and dense debate than a prolonged, dead round after twelve speeches on each bill. AGDs, fluency, stance, and general speech skills do actually matter; it's not just the flow. Amendments are a dead medium that should make a resurgence. Bryce Piotrowski is a mentor that has a lot of ideas on this event that I agree with.

PO:If you PO, do not expect a free break. In a round of great speakers, you will be ranked under them even with perfect PO'ing. Do not gavel as PO or I will straight up kick you out of the room. Use the end of the stick, use hand signals, knock, get creative and be consistent. POs should run the room: asking for splits if needed, moving things along rather than a representative.

Worlds:

This event is a little goofy and we both know it. As a judge, I am presented a rubric that gives equal points style as content. This allows some teams to hypothetically win despite losing on the flow. Though I feel that this system is a bit weird, I recognize its usage and why it exists (stop spreading) and want to respect the event; thus, if presented a rubric on my ballot, I will be using it exclusively to evaluate the round. If not, look to my debate paradigm; otherwise, read on to see how that rubric will be graded. I usually evaluate style and content relative to their closest immediate counterpart from the other side (1st PROP Speaker against 1st OPP Speaker) with strategy being pretty solely based on POIs. Here's a more detailed breakdown of what I am looking for with each point:

Style:I handle this like a competitive one-on-one platform speech against each relative counterpart. I generally note things from this laundry list only when they are particularly well executed or harmful to the speech: projection/volume (see top of paradigm), structure, speed of delivery, respectful attitude, fluency, hand gestures, control of POI taking, eye contact. The order of that list reflects my order of importance.

Content:This usually simply equates to who best moves the round forward on the flow. 1st Speakers should introduce around two substantives that have distinct, non-repeating ideas and logical warrants for those points. This role often leads to a detatched late-round presence, which I will discourage with low strategy points. You are still in this round after your speech. 2nd Speakers should do a ton of new refutation with minimal reference to prior ideas and expand the round. This role requires a very clear structure while not directly becoming repetitive. 3rd Speakers should add a newlayer of refutation and start to collapse the round down. I feel particularly that 3rd Speakers tend to not contribute to the round as much as they should. In general, new ideas/warrants that shape the round (meaning that they make sense on a quality level) will be rewarded.

Strategy:Most tournaments let me give a 13, 14, or 15. You start at a 13. If you give a good POI and attempt about three times, you will move to a 14. If you give two excellent POIs or three good POIs and attempt about six times in the round, you will move to a 15. Excessive POIs (once every 30 seconds is the absolute limit--err on the side of caution if I start giving you looks), attempting during protected, and long-winded POIs (anything over 15 seconds will start to drag on) will result in a slide back down.

Extra:If you knock a lot and I give you glances, that's not a good sign...

Speech:

Don't adapt your speech for me unless it's a concern of volume/sounds, in which case that is existential to your placement. I will do time signals and if I mess them up, you will not receive any retribution or penalty. I suggest you ask me about how time signals will be given and about how the structure of the round will go if you aren't sure. Be a good spectator; no phones and no leaving during speeches.

Extemp:This event is my baby and I love it. Please don't break that opinion. I have a modern view on how extemp should be run but still a pretty basic rubric in most rounds. For 90% of all speeches, I don’t think the question gets answered enough. I care more for answering it than giving me a good, narrative impact or something. Focus on that and you will do good. For higher level extemp, I prefer speeches to be both comedic and dramatic: doing both in a speech is a lot more skillful than just one. No layered analysis unless you really, really think it'll work. Priorities are as follows:

1. Answering the Question
2. Quality of the Points
3. Quality of Analysis (Including background)
4. Stucture and Fluency
5. Presentation
6. Number and Quality of Sources

PLUS 2 SPEAKS IF YOU BRING ME FOOD

I'm Ava, went to westwood and did pf for four years

make email chain and send before round (+1 speaks) : avadasariatx@gmail.com ANDwestwoodpfdocs@gmail.com

tech > truth but I'm not voting on anything sexist, racist, etc. just don't be problematic

I'm fine w/ speed, but send speech docs if you're spreading

pls collapse I beg. no offense ill prob presume neg

usually won't buy new evidence or arguments in final

not flowing cross so if anything is conceded in cross or something you want me to flow happens pls tell me in speeches

SPEECH BY SPEECH breakdown

Look at Amogh Mahambare + millen wadhwa paradigm

Prog

comfortable with theory

Not as comfortable with K's so if u read it explain it well

be nice to your opponents! I'll dock speaks if ur blatantly rude in round

Anderson 21' PF 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice lol

Tabula Rasa

Debate is a game

K's, T, disads, theory, any progressive args are fair ways to play

I endorse good norms...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them

you're probably not winning a generalized theory bad IVI in front of me,

if you think you've encountered bad theory, read your own shell (or IVI) about friv theory or any specific shell you find abusive

default competing interps

speed is fine

feel free to post-round me until you understand my decision

If you're reading anything off a doc in the back half ( pre-written extensions, prep-outs, literally anything)...send it to me

will.erard@gmail.com

For readers:

I flow real good so follow the rules

No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read new framing in final

Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped

If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore

You should frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary

I don't listen to cross so bring up concessions in speech

I give speaks based on in round strategy and technical prowess

FOR LD

tech pf judge

larp: very comfortable with larp, I won't mess it up I promise

theory: debated a lot of disclosure and paraphrasing in my day, I probably wont mess it up

T: T is cool

Ks: mostly familiar with the structure but not with the lit, go easy on me, I might mess it up but I'll try my best

fine with spreading

ask specific questions if you have them

I am a third-year debate coach and consider myself a learner in all aspects of debate. I prefer to judge holistically, giving an overview of each segment of the speech/debate. I try to give thorough feedback, and I prefer a speed of 7 (on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the fastest).

Overall look-fors:

• Clarity in speaking: enunciation, pronunciation, prosody, volume and intonation.
• Delivery: do you have conviction behind your delivery? Do you give the energy that you BELIEVE your evidence is stronger and overall claims prove or disprove the topic/resolution? Also, high-level words - if you can't say them properly, find a synonym or learn to say it. I won't vote on this, but it's very off-putting and it seems as if you don't know your case in most instances. Practice your cards and speeches and verify your pronunciation.
• Signposting: I need to know where you are in your speech. Please signpost.
• Behavior: do you allow your opponent to answer the question? Do you manage control over questioning if the opp goes down an unrelated rabbit hole, or doesn't answer the question? Are you speaking over the opp and no clash can occur?
• Clash: how do you attack the arguments in CX? How does your evidence negate or even prove their argument invalid
• Credibility: is your evidence PROPERLY cited (based on the type of debate, this varies)? Are you using up-to-date and relevant sources? Are the sources themselves credible or are they known for common bias?

Specifics to styles:

• Congress: Do you attack the bill? Are you referring to opponent evidence to support or negate it during your speech? Are you maintaining control when being questioned? Are you asking questions that extend arguments?
• CX: Are you properly addressing the HITSS segments? Are you using evidence that breaks down the opps case?
• LD: What's your value and how do your arguments circle back to it? The value needs to be addressed throughout the debate, as it is the foundation of why the resolution should pass or fail.
• Speech: Do you have three clear claims with at least two strong pieces of evidence, cited correctly? Are you following a CER style of construction? How confident are you in your delivery? Are you using a notecard, and if so, is it reading verbatim from the card or is it only for talking points and evidence?

Competed for Westlake for 3 years.

Not familiar with progressive argumentation, you can run it if you want practice just don’t trust I can evaluate it without explanation.

Please just treat me as flay judge.

Debated for and currently coach at Strake Jesuit

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Additionally do not swear in round or use profanities it will effect speaker points.

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 3

Phil - 1

K - 4

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

I’m a first-year out from Seven Lakes where I debated in PF.

Add me to the email chain:

judijoyjeter@gmail.com

sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

If you want me to vote off of an argument, make sure that it’s in either constructive or rebuttal and both summary and final focus.

• Tech > truth

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

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

• Defense is not sticky

• Second rebuttal must frontline

• Please signpost!!

• Speed is okay, but clarity is super important!

• I really care about evidence ethics— don’t paraphrase or lie about your evidence. I will be very receptive to arguments that call this out.

• If there are multiple competing claims, compare evidence (with warrants!) to break the clash.

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

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

• Be respectful during the debate and have fun!!

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: pkasibhatla4@gmail.com

He/Him

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

I'm Nik, I did pf for four years at Westlake

add me to email chains please: nikxkas@gmail.com

I'm good with speed but send speech docs please

make the round fun

be nice and don't be problematic (nothing sexist, racist, etc.)

General

- Tech>Truth

- please collapse

- if no offense in the round I'll presume neg

- please warrant args and weigh, I won't vote for incomplete args

- second rebuttal must frontline

- summary must extend everything they want to be evaluated (defense isn't sticky)

- I won't evaluate anything new in second final

- read from cut cards

- weighing in second rebuttal is good

- good overall strategy gets you better speaks

Prog

- I'm good with theory

- disclosure good/paraphrase bad, but I am obviously open to hearing the flip side just know it's an uphill battle

- I'm not as comfortable with K's so make sure to thoroughly explain them

Call me Aamir

Westwood '24, he/him, did PF for 3 years, got a few bids

Send docs with cut cards before speeches - aamir007is@gmail.com

Important Stuff:

- Speed is fine as long as you send a doc

- Number responses so the flow is cleaner

- Warrant all responses in every speech

- I'll (try to) fairly evaluate everything not problematic

- I'll disclose after the round if the tournament lets me

- Don't expect me to have a lot of knowledge about the topic - explain acronyms and do the necessary work

- I'll presume neg if there's no offense

- I'm fine with sarcasm/pettiness/jokes, just don't be mean to novices

Prog Stuff:

- Theory - I'm pretty comfortable with most types of theory, and can evaluate it pretty fairly. Really like disclosure and paraphrase theory, but I'll vote on just about anything thats not problematic.

-Kritiks- Very limited experience with these. I read them and debated against them a few times, but I'm nowhere near proficient. If you read Ks, explain them to me like I'm a parent. I have no issue voting on Ks, I'm just not very good at it.

Specifics:

- Extend all parts of the argument, I won't vote off of something if I didn't hear it extended in backhalf speeches

- Defense is not sticky, extend it in every speech if you want it evaluated.

- Not flowing cross so bring it up in speech

- Evidence/args introduced after 1st summary probably won't be evaluated(unless it's some type of in round abuse obv)

- I'm ok with flex prep, open cross, skipping grand if both teams agree

- If you kick turns by conceding defense, I'll still evaluate the turn if you don't explicitly tell me why the 2 are conditional

- Link turns need to have uniqueness extended in every speech you are going for them - even if your opponent is extending the same uniqueness, it should be in your speech.

Graduate from Churchill HS, participated in PF for four years. x3

My Framework for judging is CBA

Truth > Tech: to clarify, I wont be making decisions based upon my own background knowledge of the subject. What I mean by this is that impacts need sufficient warrants to hold weight on the flow even if dropped by opponents.

No Off-Resolution Theory or K: Debate is first and foremost an academic opportunity. Discussing PF, the topics routinely change to give students the opportunity to learn about a new subject. Pre-fiat arguments avoid the resolution and direct debate away from learning about said subject.

Finally to check off the rest of the boxes Cross has no weight in round andVoters given in Final Focus needs to be extended from summary.

Email for chain: oliver.laxson@my.utsa.edu

p.s. Chain is up to debaters.

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.

he/they

add me to the email chain: patmah729@gmail.com. Please include the tournament, division, round, and flight in the email subject line
Please set up the filesharing before the round. Rounds should start on time. There is especially no excuse for flight 2 late starts.
Record your speeches for online debates

I debated for four years in DFW at Byron Nelson High School (2019-2023). I'm currently studying Sustainability and Geosciences at UT Austin (Not debating, just judging). I'm a K debater at heart and read the Anthro K extensively (won't hack for it though), but I engaged in every style of debate regularly aside from super traditional debate which didn't really exist on my circuit. I didn't have a coach my last two years of debate so I relied extensively on judge feedback to improve, I will do my best to give you feedback that helps you improve.

TLDR: I most enjoy technical debate executed well. I judge a lot, but most of that is at locals and is pretty stock, so give me time to warm up at circuit tournaments. I'm comfortable listening to most arguments at most speeds, but give me pen time (even if I'm laptop flowing) or it will not get to the flow; I can't type as fast as you speak and I try not to flow off the doc, but I would rather swallow my pride and look at the doc than miss something and give a bad decision. Flash dense, prewritten analytics or slow them down. Tell me what to do and I'll do it, leave the decision in my hands and you'll be disappointed.

General Paradigm

I will try to be tab

- Speed: I don't have the best hearing, so maybe around 80% of your top speed is best.
- Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible. I am very unlikely to intervene unless there's a safety issue.
- Default Comparative worlds > Truth Testing
- Default competing interps > reasonability
- Default to util if nobody says anything
Speech times, safety, and whatever tab/the tournament invite says are the only actual rules of debate. Anything else is a norm and can be changed.

Pref shortcuts (I'll evaluate anything but I'm better at some things over others)

Ks: Bad K debate makes me sad. Good K debate is what I'm here for (1)
K Affs: are good, explain things pls (1)
Larp: is fine, go for it. (2)
Phil: These debates get really murky very quickly, please be clear and explain everything like I'm an idiot or I'm going to mess something up. (3)
Theory: I actually really like these debates, but I'm not the best at flowing procedurals so be really clear, send the doc or something for me to fall back on, otherwise I'll probably mess something up. (2)
Trad: You do you, but I expect you to correctly engage with (and beat) technical arguments. If you can't do that, strike me. (4-Strike)
Trix: are for kids. I guess I'll still evaluate it, I'd just rather not. (4-Strike)

Rapid fire misc thoughts:
Disclosure is good, I think open source + RRs should be the norm.
Unless you justify it in the 1ac as some sort of underview, 1ar theory has a higher threshold for warranting and explanation because it is introduced later.
Condo is probably okay, but you still have to justify it
RVIs are good (in LD/PF)
The best rebuttals have minimal/no overview and do everything on the line-by-line.
PTX Disads are fun and I like them, but you should be reading updated, unique, interesting scenarios.
Patrick Fox: "i am unsure why debate getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop"
In my experience, I find the spark vs ivis debate really hard to evaluate without some intervention, and I have never really been happy with my decision coming out of the rfd in these rounds. Either make the round easy to judge, or prepare to be disappointed.
"I don't need this to win, but I'll extend this anyway" is incredibly frustrating to hear. This is a synonym to the equally frustrating "Even if you don't buy X, You can also vote on Y." Collapse. Don't go for everything, just because you win it doesn't mean you should go for it.
Judge kick seems like a copout at best and intervention at the worst, I'd be less grumpy doing it if its justified in the 1nc, but I'd rather you just commit to the CP.
Please don't make early morning round 1s super complicated, I'm still waking up and can't do your arguments justice without a little warmup.

I'm pretty solidly in the trial by fire camp, but there's a line between trial by fire and just throwing your weight around. Don't make it harder to be a less experienced or institutionally disadvantaged debater. Read what you want, but don't be inaccessible or intentionally obtuse. Be the support you wish you had as a novice.

I LOVE evidence comparison, PLEASE rehighlight your opponent's cards and tell me why their authors suck, I BEG to be in the back of the room when you go for them.

Speaker points

My average speaks from all rounds I've judged is 28.2. I frequently rank debaters very close (within .5) of one another because I feel that you really can't showcase your skill without a strong opponent as well. I.e. If the aff debates perfectly against an opponent who drops everything in the 1nc, the aff probably won't get a 30 because there were ultimately fewer decisions that needed to be made in order to win.

Speaks start at 28 and go up/down based on strategy, delivery, norm setting, and round conduct. I will disclose speaks, just ask.

Speaks scale:

29.7-30.0 - Perfect debate, very difficult round
29.4-29.6 - Very good debate, difficult round
29.0-29.3 - Very good debate, average round
28.5-28.9 - Good debate, average round
28.0-28.4 - Average debate, average round
27.5-27.9 - Made several mistakes, average round
27.0-27.4 - Made several mistakes, below average round
26.0-26.9 - Very very messy round, made several mistakes, or said/did something objectionable
25.4-25.9 - Said/did something objectionable repeatedly
25.0-25.3 - Was incredibly rude, violent, or objectionable. Created a hostile environment.

Things that will boost your speaks:

Sending analytics in the doc
Collapsing early
Innovating and reading something unique and interesting that I haven't seen before
Being nice to novices

Things that will tank your speaks:

Misgendering someone (It's an auto loss if you do it twice. Be better)
Disorganized speeches
Not sending a doc
Powertagging
Paraphrasing
Making me intervene
Stealing prep
Showing up late to the round
Docbotting

LD:

Before all else, I'm a progressive LD judge because that's what I did as a debater. Everything above is mostly applicable to LD, more so than any other event.

Traditional framework debate: Framework is not a voter, it's just the lens I use to evaluate the round. Contextualize how your case best achieves the winning framework of the round. Ideally, you should do some weighing under both frameworks if the debate is at all uncertain. Anything less is gambling with my ballot.

Value debate is meaningless except in very narrow, very uncommon situations and I would rather you concede a value of morality/justice and then do the framework debate on the criterions.

CX:

I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to policy.

Policy debaters especially need to slow down their analytics, theory, and tags. If you're making arguments you care about getting onto the flow, you have to give me time to get them onto the flow, I'm not a stenographer.

RVIs are dumb in policy, condo is probably fine unless it's something absurd

PF:

I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to PF.

I'm so tired of wasting time waiting for cards. Only way to get a 30 in pf is if you send a speechdoc with non-paraphrased evidence (policy style cards) like how every other event does it. If you choose not to send evidence initially and we end up wasting time for you to find it and send it, I will be docking speaks heavily.

I will probably never vote for an argument that calls me to reject someone solely for engaging in progressive/policy oriented debate.

"accordingly," "Luckily," "we see this in" and other adverbs or transitional phrases are NOT TAGLINES. your taglines ought to include the claim the card is making. If your cards are missing taglines, you can gamble with whether I'm going to flow what you want me to. This will heavily impact speaks.

If someone asks for evidence, sending a link to a study paper or webpage is not acceptable, you have a responsibility to clearly mark where you're paraphrasing from (that means send highlighted evidence). Each time it happens is -1 speaker point, I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote on it. Debate has clear standards for evidence and you don't get to just ignore them. This is like the simplest thing.

read paraphrasing theory

tldr:

trad pf judge

he/him

if you are going fast please signpost and send a speech doc, clarity is important

Weigh otherwise I'll intervene, pre-reqs and link ins are great. I presume squo then first.

Flex prep is good

Let's read warrants!

Please do not be rude or mean- your speaks will likely be lower if you do. This also means if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will stop the round and down you.

IF A TEAM CANNOT DISCLOSE BY SCHOOL POLICY I WILL NOT VOTE FOR DISCLOSURE

Read non substance at ur own discretion

paradigm

Background/ Experience:

I have competed in several IPDA and Lincoln Douglas events, as well as congressional. I won 2nd place in the National IPDA tournament last year.

Likes:

I love a solid, clear argument that maintains the clash. I also love when you can tie your case into your weighing mechanism or value/value criterion.

Dislikes:

Disrespect. The point is to not bash your opponent but to clash with their case. Please do not spread in your round, as that makes it difficult for both your opponent and me.

They/Them pronouns, -0.5 speaks every time you refer to me as she or he. If you can't get it right, just use judge or my name (Kait). Easy as that.

Put me on the email chain please: nash.kaitlyn04@gmail.com

Experience

I'm on the Trinity University Policy debate team. Sophomore Comm major.

2023 NSDA Student of the Year Finalist

In high school, I debated for the Hendrickson Debate team. I did Policy my freshman year and PF for 3 years.

I went to Nationals for World Schools three times, in 2023 we made Octofinals and in 2022 we made Trips, in 2021 we didn't break.

I participated in Extemp (foreign and domestic) all 4 years of HS. Made it to Nats twice.

I've dabbled in Oratory and Info.

My biggest rule for all rounds - be respectful or I'll down you (ie: no racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia...)

PF specific:
Flow Judge, Tech over Truth

General: I would like to see weighing and ballot directive language in your rounds. Tell me where you're going or else I won't be able to write it down, hurting your chances of winning. Also, reading tons of contentions (4+) with no link chain and then trying to persuade me to vote on it is a dumb idea.

Theory and Ks in PF: I'm okay with theory, but if you run it, run it well. As a personal belief - I don't think Ks belong in PF unless they are formatted correctly- there is not enough time and most of the teams running Ks are doing it as a strategic tool for winning against other people who are unfamiliar, not because they genuinely believe in the advocacy of the K. This is BAD. Please don't run a K unless you genuinely care about that topic AND you are a) willing to go all in on the K (because that is what must happen in order for your advocacy to work and for you to have enough time to sufficiently run it) and b) you have READ THE LITERATURE of the K. If you just got something from an older team member and/or saw it on a wiki, then it isn't for you. Read the lit.

Framework: If you provide a f/w, then it must a) have an actual function in the round as it relates to your case and b) you have to carry it throughout the round. I will not vote for f/w that you drop after constructive. If another team does run f/w, you either have to answer it or link in. If you don't and they extend it all the way through, they will win.

Spreading: Hey, you do you. However, if you are not being clear I will say CLEAR and if after one warning you do not fix it, I will stop flowing.

Cross X: Look at me, not the other person because I'm the one you're trying to persuade. Be kind, but firm. Don't take all the time...I'll down your speaks.

Speaks

30-29: Great job! I generally like your speaking

28.9-28: Good job, you could use some drills though

27.8-27: Some blips that you need to work on. I'll give in round feedback specific to your speaking.

26.9-26: You definitely need some work. You were either pretty aggressive or couldn't get through a speech.

25.9-25: You were super aggressive/offensive and I most likely had to stop the round.

Policy Specific

As mentioned before, I've been in Policy before, but I'm just now getting back into it. That being said...

Speed:

Go as fast as you want, but send speech docs to me and your opponents if you know you're going to spread (more so if you know you're not the most articulate). Slow down a bit for the 2AR and 2NR. That being said, I will flow what is spoken in the debate, not the speech document.

Speaking:

Borrowing from Aly Mithani here:

" -I will call you out if you are blatantly stealing prep and it will hurt your speaker points.
-For paperless teams, I do not run prep time for saving/flashing the speech unless this time starts to become excessive or it becomes evident that prep is being stolen.
-It drives me crazy when debaters are disrespectful to each other. There is no reason why competitiveness needs to turn into aggression. Treat the debate space like a classroom.
-Another pet peeve: debaters who do not seem to legitimately enjoy what they are doing. Debaters who go through the motions are usually the ones that end up with the lowest speaker points from me. Even if you are not keeping up with the technical aspects of the debate, if you remain engaged and committed throughout the debate, I will definitely feel more comfortable with giving you higher speaker points."

Overall:

I will vote for anything that isn't against the biggest rule at the top of the paradigm. As long as you have sufficient offense and defense, run it. I think the best way to repsond to everything is going line-by-line and grouping responses.

I will work on buffing up this part of my paradigm, but I'm looking to keep judging Policy so I can do so.

Extemp

Borrowing from Audrey Fife "I look for confident, clear speakers who know how to sound and appear like they belong in the room. I love to see competitors that remind me how much I miss doing speech! Wow me with your content and keep my attention with your presentation."

I think that extemp is such an important event and you should treat it as such! Try to make at least 6 minutes and give at least 5 sources. When I did extemp, I went for the following outline, which I think is really great for making your speech digestable:

AGD: Attention Grabber!

Link: link it into your speech

BKD: Give background of the subject you are talking about (usually put a source here)

SOS: why this matters for the judge/people all around the world. Why should be care?

Q: question

A: answer

Preview: State your 3 answers

Each point I gave had 2/3 sources and I think thats a great strategy. Don't just cite the sources, though, incorporate them into your speech. I think jokes are an great way to relate to your judge, but please don't cringe me out with a bad/sexist/homophobic/anything joke.

Somebody who is able to fill their speech with pauses instead of UHHH and UMMM if more preferable than the latter competitor. Make eye contact, make me laugh, make me emotional, and you got a good chance of getting top 3 in the room.

Other than that, good luck and have fun! If you have (respectful) post round questions, feel free to email me! I prefer this to in person post rounding as I get very flustered.

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in topical research rather than theory or a recycled backfile, but I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.

-- Biography

he/him

School Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)

Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit)

Experience: I've coached since 2016. Currently the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes (TX), previously coached at Lakeville North/South (MN). I did NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college (like extemp policy) and PF/Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.

-- Logistics

The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.

Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.

--

I've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

I am a parent judge, who has judged a reasonable number of rounds. You may speak fast, as long as you are understandable. Cite your sources as much as possible. If you call for evidence outside of cross-ex, you will be using your prep time. Also, please avoid asking super long questions during cross-ex, and allow the other team to answer. I give speaker points based on strategy and presentation. I may dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, please start an email chain and add me at subashri.r@gmail.com.

Debate is about having fun, enjoy it!!

Bach Tran (he/him)

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 (at) gmail (dot) com

If I am judging you in PF please also add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

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

tl;dr/read before round - scroll down for PF-specifics

Tech > Truth, but I won't vote for incomplete/unwarranted arguments, and arguments that the tabroom/higher authorities forbids me to. What you choose to read and my own biases are largely irrelevant to the RFD if you explain your stuff and tell me what to do. Weighing, judge instruction, and evidence/warrant comparisons are key to getting my ballot.

Very few issues are ever matters of yes/no by default - as such, I think you should debate everything in terms of relative risks and probabilities unless you are willing to invest time in asserting otherwise. The only thing where this does not apply is whether a team violates a theory interpretation.

Ad homs/character attacks are not arguments - out of round concerns about behaviour are for the tabroom and coaches to deal with, not me. Egregious -isms in round however will result in an L and the lowest speaker points I can give (read: be kind and a decent person).

I like and will reward creative and bold strategies (e.g., heg good against the K) and/or excellent research & knowledge generously with points. You are playing a dangerous game asking for 30s.

Please be on time and minimize dead time. The 1AC should be read at the start time and shared before that.

Feel free to ask questions in person or via email.

Evidence

- Speech docs/ev sharing are almost non-negotiable - please refrain from sending stuff that aren't verbatim documents.

- Speed is fine, unclearness is not. If you think I can flow round-decisive analytics in the rebuttals with no docs at top card speed, you should strike me.

- I flow on paper, straight down, without author names - pen time, numbering, signposting and referencing arguments/warrants are all musts

- You can insert rehighlights if they are short and you explain the implications. Obviously if you are recutting cards you need to read them out loud.

- Ethics issues will stop the round - W30s if I think you are correct, L0 otherwise. Instructions from the tabroom will of course override this.

- Please tell me to read cards - no "read X card," yes "read X card it doesn't assume [thing]"

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

Policy: anything goes absent theory but no judgekick if not instructed to. 0% risk is possible.

The K: you should explain & weigh what is offense/uniqueness/solvency under your framework. Framework/ROTB can be anything if you out-debate the other team. These things are done better via the line-by-line and not massive overviews. You should also strive to minimize the amount of buzzwords, for they will not substitute proper debating (or lack thereof).

Theory/T: no defaults on paradigm issues (read them!) + slow down on the analytic walls. Weighing between shells is really important.

It takes more than 5 seconds to explain why an IVI is "independent" and a "voting issue." Will not vote on these otherwise.

K Affs: the 1ac should defend a change from the squo. Debate is probably a game (it can be more). Framework is fine, impact turns are fine, CIs also fine. Please hold my hands through a KvK debate (especially your vision of competition/perms)

Phil: bad for the tricky variety but otherwise explain and we're all good.

Tricks: please don't - I won't hack but I just really don't like judging them. At the very least read complete arguments not the dumb stuff.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable. My views are really similar to that of Bryce Piotrowski.

Disclosure/OS is probably good but I'm willing to vote the other way. Paraphrasing is bad and the chance I vote to the contrary is vanishingly small.

Please stop having prepositions as taglines

Defense is not sticky - frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend whatever you want to go for in the back-half. The back-half should also collapse.

Link weighing is underrated and usually round winners

Weighing requires explaining scenarios and how the world works, not yeeting buzzwords at each other (e.g., "MAD checks" is not a complete argument).The fact that you can win by reading nonsense and then screaming "try or die" for half an hour is ridiculous.

I think K teams get more mileage if they go for (real) impact framing arguments instead of yapping about such things as "pre-fiat" or "discourse." I will, of course, vote on them if you win them but that does not mean that they are, in fact, serious arguments.

** i will auto down any black trauma centered cases (if ur not black) reading stru viol arguments is fine and implicating racism as an impact is great but dont spell out trauma for shock value**

I debated at Hendrickson for my last 2 yrs of highschool

tech>truth (but pls dont abuse this)

Frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal if u wanna go for it (U DONT NEEDA EXTEND IN REBUTTAL)

Defense is sticky

not super familiar with K's but if it makes sense ill be down to vote off it

speeds fine for me, dont ignore judges paradigms that say not too fast. If your opponents ask for a speech doc, give it to them idc how fast ur going, they may need it for personal reasons.

Clash is cool but I have a soft place in my heart for unique args (not squirrely, theirs a difference) also pls weigh like crazy, and implicate everything

Summary is the most important speech in the round, FF is just for show, unless yall messed up in this round, I shud have my decision by summary, provided both sides weigh/frame the round, otherwise one of yall will think im judge screwing

sum other tips

1. be nice in rounds

2. EXTEND WARRANTS, frontlines are not extensions

3. Weighing/Framing OV in rebuttals r super strategic

4. Concede the small things to win the narrative, evidence debates are boring, which means if u make it an ev debate I will make the standard for good ev rlly rlly high, and if neither of you have offense speaks will tank and I will default to whatever team i want to

5. Any isms (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc) = u lose + i tank ur speaks + i tattle to ur coach

6. Don't be buttholes with theory

7. Do NOT, and I'll repeat this to make sure this is super clear, DO NOT read structural violence-based arguments without a clear, nuanced and thoughtful understanding of the oppression that exists. I will never accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this, logic-based warranting is key; for your own sake do not assume my political views/skin color will make me any more attracted to these types of arguments, in fact, I would very much rather prefer you have no understanding of the issues and not read this argument than have a shallow understanding and read these types of arguments. If I sense BS you better believe I will call you out on it.

8. Take risks, ill reward it (collapsing on a turn)

9. Have fuuunsies, debate is a game, winning and losing r aspects of the game, dont take it to seriously, just enjoy urself in the moment and be respectful of one another

if u wanna talk/postround/add me to the chain my email is: tulu.nahom@gmail.com

westwood '24

always add me to chain- eshavenkatt@gmail.com

i dont look at evidence that is not in the chain. send docs with all your evidence BEFORE speeches, if you do this i am good with speed.

tech > truth, i disclose

-will evalute anything, as long as you think i could understand it go ahead

-yes this includes theory, kritiks (stick to the more common ones such as cap, security, etc.)

-somewhat lower threshold for extensions, just include all the parts. that being said warrants matter so please extend/implicate them

-i dont know topics anymore so explain acronyms and such unless its deep into the tournament

-i automatically presume neg if i find there is no offense, however i can be convinced otherwise

-i dont flow cross

-link turns NEED uniqueness. i cant stress this enough.

-second rebuttal should be frontlining and responding to the opponents case.

-if you do not agree with my decision post round. its one of the best ways to learn. as always judges can make mistakes so try to be respectful

defintely missed stuff so just ask before the round

have fun!

hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.

1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

2. PLEASE signpost.

3. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.

4. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.

5. I try to flow all the card names but I usually just end up flowing the argument only. That being said, don't extend by saying "extend the Smith card", you will need to repeat the actual argument.

6. I'm fine with speed. if you think it's going to be rlly fast, send me your speech doc before so we avoid any issues

Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.

Theory and Kritiks: don't do it.

If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at sanjitha.y@gmail.com