CCA SD Camp
2018 — San Diego, CA/US
Saikumar Gantla Paradigm
**disclaimer: i haven't done anything debate related since May, please explain any topic-specific terms clearly**
4 years PF @ canyon crest/carmel valley
-you're best served debating the way that you normally debate as i can understand pretty much everything within the realm of PF and can adapt to most styles
-that being said, a few things you should know (most important --> least):
i require everything to be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal to access case offense, not just turns - be strategic
dropped defense can go from rebuttal to ff
if you're going to spread (like actually spread, not 10 wpm or whatever people think spreading in PF is), please send speech doc
i'm not really the best person to evaluate theory/K/etc and will probably make the wrong decision in such instances. also im not really sure that they have a place in PF considering time constraints, as such I have a low threshold for responses
i only call for cards if you ask me to
preflow in your own time, show up to round & set up table tote ASAP, flip beforehand etc - please don't keep the tournament waiting
For speaks: if it's a really good round, expect 30s. otherwise, I tend to give out pretty average speaks. Default 25 if you're syon mansur or Yash gupta
if you have further questions, ask before round
Luke Huang Paradigm
Public Forum, like all forums, is a waste of time.
fourth year PF debater at Canyon Crest
please consider the following during your round:
- regarding behavior: I run the tournament; take that as you will
Andrea Liu Paradigm
Did not debate the Catalonia topic, but have judged practice rounds for it, so any links must be thoroughly backed up and explained.
Off-time roadmaps are okay, just confirm with your opponents that they're okay with them too.
I've debated for 3 years at CCA, so:
- Yes, I will be flowing all of your speeches. No, I will not flow crossfire, so if anything important happens in crossfire, just bring it up in your next speech.
- I can handle speed, so if you want to speak quickly, go for it.
- SIGNPOST -- this is the surefire way to know that I will have counted your argument in that speech.
- I will judge the round based on whatever framework both teams agree on, so be sure to extend arguments and impacts (AND WEIGH THEM) in both Summary and Final Focus. If the framework is not agreed on, prove you win under both. I should not have to go back and determine what the most important points in the round are -- I expect you to weigh them for me.
- Anything said in Final Focus needs to have been brought up in Summary.
- If you are being unclear, I will put my pen down to signal that I am no longer flowing your arguments -- take that as a cue to clarify.
- Ultimately, treat me like a flay judge. It will mostly be tech over truth unless the argument is very clearly untrue.
- If you are rude during the round, expect very low speaks from me, even though I may give you the win. That being said, if you are being downright abusive, I will drop you.
Feel free to ask me questions about any more preferences you may want to be cleared up. Good luck!
Syon Mansur Paradigm
god i despise debate
stole most of this paradigm from iain law <3
I judge how I wish I was judged
I debate in PF for Carmel Valley Independent/Canyon Crest Academy on the nat circ. I like fast, tech debates but you should debate the way you want. Don't use speed to exclude your opponents though; if you spread ask your opps first and send docs
I will evaluate most arguments as long as they have warranted and weighed. Easiest way to win is warrant, weigh, and implicate.
I will not vote for an argument if you don’t extend a link/impact into both summary and final focus. I expect full extensions (preferably with card names and explanations)
Warrants should be read and extended. I don't care if you go fast, just don't be blippy
Offense needs to be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. I would prefer if you collapse early and frontline all terminal defense also. Defense is sticky so if you don't frontline in 2nd rebuttal the first speaking team can extend defense from rebuttal to final. However, if second rebuttal frontlines and first summary doesn't interact with said frontlines, then the argument is conceded in summary.
Do not go for turns in front of me if they aren't weighed or implicated
If turns are read and you want to concede a delink to kick out of the turns, you must do it the speech right after the turns are read
I will evaluate all framing arguments first
You will probably lose the round if you don't weigh. Access probability on your argument/doing link work before doing impact calc. Weighing needs to be warranted and comparative. Please interact with your opponent's weighing and do meta weighing.
I think probability, clarity of link, and clarity of impact are all real types of weighing if it is done properly
I was never taught how these arguments functioned so be careful if you read them with me. If you warrant and explain things well, though, I'm down to vote on anything.
Postrounding is educational :) Just don't be rude + postrounding will never change my ballot
Please preflow/flip/set up tabletote before round.
don't steal prep or else i drop speaks
Pratik Rungta Paradigm
(Note: I am still a high schooler, this paradigm will most likely only be used for local and middle school tournaments)
Hi! This is my fourth year debating Public Forum, and I'm excited to see what the next generation of debaters has to offer! For this tournament, I'm going to judge both the quality of your arguments and also how well you speak and present yourself. Good luck to both of you, and remember that, regardless of who I choose, you are all spending your day doing something worthwhile and you all should be proud of yourselves!
Junior debating PF at CCA for four years.
PTMS PF co-coach.
How I judge:
I am a 'tabula rasa' judge, which means that I come into the round with a blank slate and let you fill in the blanks.
I use this really extra flow paper which you can get here. (Shameless self-promo)
I flow all parts of the round except crossfires. Crossfires are a time when you should be putting your opponents into an awkward situation, and taken advantage of in the next speech.
Please stand during crossfires, and keep your roadmaps on-time.
I can understand up to roughly 275 words/min, but I would strongly recommend you are 200 words/min or under.
After your speeches, I will rate each one on a scale from 25 to 30 by 0.5 (25, 25.5, 26..., 29.5, 30), and will average your two scores together (see "speaking scale" for my guidelines). I rarely give low point wins (when the side with worse speaks wins the round) but it can happen.
After the round, I may disclose the winner at my discretion. If I do not disclose or do not deliver a long RFD (reason for decision) for time reasons or because the debate was really close, expect a lengthy written RFD. Should I choose to flow on my computer, I will also attach my flow document on the RFD.
How to win:
Be clear and concise.
Convince me that you know what you are talking about.
SIGNPOST! Please make my flow organized.
Have good quality arguments with insightful warrants and meaningful impacts.
IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS! I heavily vote off of impacts because they are what makes debate meaningful in the first place.
Have good posture; don't hunch over your paper and look at me as much as you can while giving your speech.
How to lose:
I will instantly give you a loss if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or otherwise egregiously exclusionary.
Be rude to me, your opponents, or anyone else participating in or managing the tournament.
Slur/mumble/say words in a way that I cannot understand what you're saying. Spreading (talking in excess of 300 words/min for me) will be an instant loss.
Bring up new evidence in Final Focus. I will catch you and punish you. Only concepts expressed in Summary Speech can be expressed in Final Focus.
Fidget/fumble on or off the podium.
Break the rules.
Speaking scale (tldr if you make me cry you either got below 26 or at least 29.5):
<26: You didn't talk, I didn't understand anything, or you were being rude/facetious/petty. I might have cried in boredom or frustration of how incredibly mean you're being.
26-26.8: Had frequent pauses, monotony, or spoke in such a way that I got super bored.
27-27.3: Slightly under average for my standards.
27.5: Average for what I expect a person of your age and experience.
27.7-28: You have potential, with just a few hiccups here and there.
28.2-28.8: You're REALLY GOOD. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing you speak.
29-29.8: 0-1 minor errors that do not impact you deliver or the meaning.
30: Don’t even bother to hope to get a 30. There are two ways to get a 30: 1) be a better speaker than almost everyone I know, or 2) make me consider quitting debate on speaking skills along
If you think your opponents are breaking the rules:
Stop the round IMMEDIATELY and notify me. I will take appropriate action.
Spreading, common in circuit LD, is contrary to the purpose of debate because the main purpose of the activity of debate is to stimulate discourse in forums all over the US and abroad. Spreading hinders any further discourse by strategically and unfairly stuffing arguments and winning off technicalities, making it virtually inaccessible to a larger audience, lowering any chances of real discourse happening.
Alex Tahan Paradigm
wHat Is pUbLic ForUM?
I vOtE oN CrOSs aNd sPeAkS
Here's my actual paradigm:
-I've debated PF for 2 years at Canyon Crest
-I am a tabula rasa judge, but if an argument is offensive or false, I will most likely drop it. I also will prefer arguments that aren't theory or Ks. Other than that, any argument is fine, so be creative!
-Any speaking speed is fine, but I may not catch some stuff if you spread or get close to spreading. However, Don't sacrifice clarity for speed.
-EVERYTHING in final focus must be said in summary. Have a clear RFD/voters that should be laid out in FF. Make sure to weigh.
-Road Maps, Sing Posts, Impact Calculus.
-When extending, extend claim, warrant and impact. Extend cards with the author, date, and tagline. Make sure not to extend through ink, and call out your opponents if they do this.
-I won't be flowing during cross, but I'll be paying attention. If something important is brought up, I WON'T write it down, so make sure to bring it up in your next speech.
-Call out your opponents in your speeches if they're breaking the rules, but I will probably notice. If you are breaking the rules, you will either lose or I won't like you (depending on the severity). I won't call for evidence unless there is a dispute over it or I find it important for the RFD.
-Time your own speeches and prep
-Don't take ten years to find a card. Please hurry up or you will most definitely lose speaks. Look at cards during prep, not cross.
-Higher speaks for puns and other jokes, and maybe memes. Roasting in cross is also cool, as long as its not too offensive or confusing.
-Lastly, RELAX and HAVE FUN!
Sophia Teglia Paradigm
I have been doing LD for 2 years, I'm a sophomore. I have a decent understanding of all events but i only do LD.
Feel free to read at whatever speed you like if you're gonna spread then send your case to me.
For speaks remember the difference between being funny and just being a jerk and you'll get 27+. Anything unethical (like falsifying evidence, saying you refuted something you didn't refute) and you will get 20 speaks and lose. If you bring me food +5 speaks.
I am not a big fan of lay debate if you want you can be lay but its not gonna get you a W your args will.
Make sure you extend args if you don't extend it doesn't apply. When you extend just say extend cont 3 don't explain the arg again if you do you're wasting time. If you drop something it is gone don't try to say you actually did refute it I'll just get annoyed and lower your speaks.
Don't run stuff from some random backfile that you don't understand.
Don't forget to tell me how I should weigh everything in the round.
FW: I like fw debates its interesting.
Theory: I love theory you can run whatever theory you want and I will be very very happy!!!!!
Kritiks: I like kritiks and want to learn more about them. I've written a few and refuted a few.
any questions email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
Catherine Wang Paradigm
Samuel Xiong Paradigm
Frank Yang Paradigm
Hello! I've debated PF for 4 years and LD for 2 years(both at Canyon Crest Academy). I guess I'm a flay judge?
I don't like to impose too many guidelines on how rounds should go, but here are some things to keep in mind:
Speed is fine, just try not to spread please(the content should be clearly understood by the general public) :)
I'm pretty flexible with any argument that you run; just make sure you explain it clearly with weighing and signposting :)
Please don't be rude in crossfire/cross-ex.
Don't be afraid to ask me questions before/after the round! And most importantly, have fun!!!
Jason 👌 Yang 👌 Paradigm
Time before round is limited. If you don't have time then read the first part. the second part is for people who can read it all. There's also some additional prefs at the bottom and stuff for pf/traditional ld
-"If nobody hates you, you are doing something wrong." - Dr. House
-"Its unavoidable. It just happens. When you grow up, your heart dies." - Allison Reynolds
-"God is Dead" - Nietzsche 1882
-"Nietzsche is Dead" - God, 1900
-"Nietzsche is God" - Foucault, 1972
-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will call "clear" if you are "unclear". If anything, I dislike a slow debate. This however is a double-edged sword -- if you do fast debate terribly I will punish you for it.
-I have a minimum standard for coherence of arguments or evidence. This probably means you think I’m “Interventionist.”
How I handle speaker points:
30: god exists. this means you did literally everything well and stayed persuasive the whole. this is probably impossible though.
29.5-29.9: you are great and I genuinely liked hearing your speeches. this means you were clashing effectively and line by lining efficiently and I had no trouble following it. you actually know how to debate and how the arguments interact with one another. you will most likely be going deep in elims, if not win the tournament.
29-29.4: your speeches had form and purpose. your strat was good and well executed. it's clear that you're a high tier debater. However you probably were lacking very mildly on a few arguments which kept you back from 29.5+. you'll definitely break and advance relatively far.
28.5-28.9: the speeches were reasonably good and arguments were handled decently. you might've hinted at some good things but never really warranted them out. I probably said "good debate". This debate can probably be replicated by two decent debaters on the circuit. you'll most likely break.
28-28.4: the speeches were ok. you probably ended with ~30 secs left in a speech but arguments were handled. There were most likely a few "ums" and "uhs". clash could be better but it was there. the line by line was probably but there. you might be able to break, maybe not.
27.5-27.9: eh. I probably logged onto facebook at least once cus the speeches were boring. Clash could most definitely be more fleshed out and better. the line by line was at best mediocre or lacking. an average debate. most debaters will end up here. you're destined to break even; you'll most likely not break though
27-27.4: you're either new, or you don't know what clash is, or you just don't clash. You're probably part of the bottom 40% of debaters in the pool. i probably had to jump around on my flow unnecessarily often and the argument quality is probably mostly claims and no warrants. a lot of "uhms" and pauses and a lot of stuttering. A slightly below/ relatively below average debate. you won't be breaking.
26-26.9: the only way you can end up here if you try to spread knowing that you can't, or if your speeches are extremely hard to follow and hard/annoying to listen to. the speeches were extremely unorganized and had absolutely no purpose. i probably stopped listening during and am on reddit. the argument quality is extremely lacking or just shit. you're definitely part of the bottom 25% of the pool and breaking even might be a stretch.
25 range: you did something unethical or tried to impact turn racism or something. either that or you weren't taking the debate seriously/you literally just didn't speak or had like 30 second pauses in your speech. i will be impressed if you go 1-5 or 2-4.
Some other stuff
-reading racism/genocide/bigotry good means 0 speaks. losing to racism/genocide/bigotry good means -∞ speaks (how bad are you?)
-attaching good memes at the top of the doc means +0.5-1 speaks. attaching normie memes at the top of the doc means autoloss. Do it if you dare.
-Defense is not offense. When debaters say "this block provides me w/ enough offense", I hear "i'm not very good at debate"
-I am what most would call a "theory hack". I think this is because most people are pretty terrible at handling theory. This does not mean I think font size theory is good theory.
-I am not the smartest tech judge for Ks, but I am familiar with stock like cap. However, if 90% of your K consists of the words: "rupture off arborescent possibilities in exchange for rhizomatic possibilities" or "a relational assemblage which transforms the hieroglyphics of the flesh into a line of flight", you can't expect me to understand it instantly. That said, I still think debate is a space where you have the right to your arguments, but if you don't explain or contextualize, it might be counterproductive to read the argument. Your call.
-Prep time ends when you finish compiling the doc
-I distrust evidence that isn't shared via Email (this is directed at LD).
-Clipping is autoloss w/ 0 speaks. I will know when you are doing it.
add me to the chain -- email@example.com
some additional short preferences:
-if your only refutation is "their source is from 2015" you should probably learn how to debate first
-I hate it when males flex their masculinity on female debaters (seriously dude wtf)
-Super high theory Ks w/o any decent explanation mean nothing to me
-wonky impact turns means up to +1 speaks.
-sassy and fire cx means +0.2 speaks. shifty and asshole cx means up to -1 speaks.
-Disads are 0% risk if the evidence is absolutely horrible.
-Smart, specific counterplans that solve the nuances of the case will be rewarded with higher speaks and lower winning thresholds.
-traditional/pf debate is fine. I often appear extremely bored and tired when judging these rounds -- this is not only because I am, but also cus these debates tend to lack clash and speed. This is not to say I dislike traditional/pf debate, it's just to say the stuff I usually spectate is pretty terrible. (I've judged too many pf rounds where both teams spend 10 minutes iterating their own contention 5000 times). Thus, if you make these debates interesting, I will reward your team with high speaks.
-If anything, I dislike a slow debate. Go as fast as you want (as long as your opponent is comfortable).
-new 2ar/last speech extrapolations filled with emotion and bs will be met with me laughing
P.S: traditional/pf debaters who think they're fast are usually really not. nobody is impressed by the fact that you can read your lay case at 150 wpm. this also relates to my speaker point preferences i mentioned above ^^
jk i dont really have time rn