University of Houston Cougar Classic

2019 — Houston, TX/US

Omid Abaei Paradigm

8 rounds

I have 5 years of experience in public forum debate, so spreading is fine as long as I can understand you. I'll evaluate the round through whatever framework you give me, as long as it's reasonable and why I should prefer it over your opponent's framework. 

Muaaz Ahmad Paradigm

8 rounds

Background: Competed in speech/debate for 4 years in high school.

Public Forum

General: I seek to minimize judge intervention, so clear weighing mechanisms are important. Will flow line-by-line and vote on impacts, so signposting is important. Make sure to address counterarguments sufficiently when making extensions. Clash is important, but remain respectful, don't be passive-aggressive, etc.

CX: I do not flow CX; if something important comes out of it, mention it in a subsequent speech.

Evidence: May ask to see questionable evidence. Misrepresenting evidence will lose you the argument but not necessarily the whole debate.

Speed: Personally not fond of spreading as I prefer clarity/fluency. I am comfortable with some speed and will flow what I can understand, but will stop flowing when it becomes unintelligible and deduct speaks accordingly.

Theory: Receptive to complaints regarding abusive argumentation. Will consider some progressive argumentation (counterplans/plans, kritiks, etc.) but nothing too convoluted; public forum should remain accessible to laypeople. I do prefer traditional debate and am more liable to intervention in a theory-heavy debate; make sure that argumentation is especially clear and warranted if you go this route.

 

 

 

Shayan Ali Paradigm

I participated in Public Forum Debate for 4 years and am very knowledgeable about the event. To a certain extent, I believe that PF Debate is a speaking event and prefer if you don't speak too fast/spread. However, if the round comes to it, I am able to flow fast speaking. I would like to see weighing in the speeches to make it easier for me to decide the winner of the round. Additionally, please don't just try to "extend" everything ESPECIALLY don't extend through ink. Explain the argument effectively and why it is important. In summary, try to crystalize arguments and focus on the ones that will help you win the round. There's no need to extend terminal defense if it is not responded to and it usually won't be a voting issue.

Overall: Speak clearly, make logical arguments, use weighing mechanisms, and make it easy for me to sign my ballot.

Claire Berger Paradigm

I did not debate as a student. I have previously judged about 7 rounds of PF. I have quite a bit of philosophy and policy background knowledge- I have an educational and professional background in foreign policy. I currently teach history.

My paradigms:

No spreading. No jargon. I am new to debate so you will lose me if you disregard this. I will ask you to be clear once.

Slow down for taglines, citations, etc.

Do impact calculus. Explain how your arguments interact. Compare evidence. I like clash.

Don't be rude. Don't exclude your opponents. Each round is an educational opportunity.

Feel free to run any argument in front of me, as long as it is well-developed and you explain how I should evaluate it.

Jacob Caynon Paradigm

Hello,

I debated Public Forum for two years, so I know how things should go. I'll evaluate anything if it isn't racist, sexist, homophobic or makes others feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Knowing a lot about the topic will help you more than any amount of card dumping. Explain to me your framework and why it should be valued at all in the constructive.

(special note for dudes)

Testosterone makes us stupid if I feel that during CX or at any other point you're being needlessly aggressive it will be reflected in your speaker points. Also interrupting someone doesn't make you right, we all have done it, we can all do better.

Thanks,

Jacob Caynon

Cara Day Paradigm

*Updated for April 2019*

I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit and have coached there for over 2 years. In high school I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.

TL;DR/General

-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.

*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc. Making arguments that impact turn any type of oppression will get you an L20.

-Speed: Go as fast as you want- I can pretty much catch most things. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing and drop your speaks. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.

-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. Rounds with no offense are horrible to judge. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact or you don't get access to the argument.

-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting. Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.

-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important

-CX is binding

- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.

-Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or you click send on the email.

-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech.

-You can do anything you want -- don't care if it's sketchy (other than miscut evidence) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol

-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.

- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.

Speaks

I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: be funny, go for the right things in later speeches, speak clearly, make CX interesting. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out one). I give speaks more on strategy than on actual speaking skills, especially in LD.

For PF:

I much prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus.

My thoughts on defense: The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus (obvi besides offense) is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate risk of offense claims.

First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).

Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF.

I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below.

You get a 1:30 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.

For LD:

My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)

Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1

Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1

Ideal FWs: 1

Theory/T: 2

Tricks: 3

K: 3

Non-T Affs: 5

Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs. I think DA turns the AC args are some of my favorite to vote on. Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.

FW: I'm a philosophy major and plan on getting a philosophy PhD, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc

Theory/T: I tend to default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I also love hearing drop the arg> drop the debater arguments and will definitely go for them if well-warranted. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.

If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.

Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.

Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.

DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.

Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!

If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.

The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.

Email: cara.day@utexas.edu

Or FB message me with questions

William Ding Paradigm

Speaks: I really, really don't like speed. I'm not even talking about spreading. If you go fast, i'll flow it and i'll evaluate the arg, but i won't want to, so if you dont want to take the risk on your speaks and/or the ballot, go slow.

Evidence: I will always call for evidence. Especially for args that are critical to the round. Don't misrepresent, or you're pretty much screwed. Also, I don’t flow card names in constructive/rebuttal, so if you want me to notice a specific piece of evidence, tell me what it says on top of its name.

Extensions: Offense needs to be extended in all speeches except for maybe the rebuttal (if its offense in case). Defense doesnt need to be extended in first summary. Some judges ask for 2nd rebuttal to be interactive with the first rebuttal, and while i agree its definitely helpful if you don't have to respond to everything in summary, it isn't necessary to secure my ballot. Impact extensions can be really short, since i would prefer to see more clash in the links.

Args: Don't run progressive arguments. Also, i'm tech over truth, but i will really not want to give you the ballot if you run stupid args like extinction. It doesn't matter if you read me weighing that says evaluate extinction as the highest impact in the round, i won't buy it. If one of yall is throwing on purpose, lmk beforehand so i dont have to flow.

General Speaking:

1) If you don't signpost, you're gna see me not flowing, so if you want what you say to be on my flow, please tell me where you’re at.

2) WEIGH WHAT YOU SAY IN ALL SPEECHES. The worst thing as a judge is to intervene because each side had an argument get extended. In that case, i will just vote with my gut feeling, and you probably won't like it. Also, weighing doesn't just mean throw out buzzwords like "we out weigh in scope" and then say something completely unrelated.

3) Give me a roadmap, and if you tell me you're starting with an overview, please tell me where to flow it.

4) I was hella abusive in crossfire when i debated, so i won't straight up down in you speaks for being a bit rude. However, if you're not letting your opponent talk at all, i'm probably not gna like you, and if i don't like you, you won't like your speaks.

5) I’m not a big fan of funny tag lines. It doesn’t matter too much but I personally think your tagline should get right to the crux of the argument so i know what im looking for.

6) In a bubble round, if you ask me how to get 30 speaks, ill tell you, and if you don't screw it up completely, you will probably get at least a 29.

Other Stuff:

1) I'm generally gonna disclose and give the exact rfd as to how i made the decision from the perspective of the flow. However, if you have any questions about speaking, feel free to ask me.

2) I probably won't be giving all my attention to crossfire, and i probably wont be flowing it either. If you wan't something to be evaluated that came from cross, bring it up in your speech.

Anson Fung Paradigm

PF Paradigm//

Good debaters are like big politicians speaking on a big stage.

Evidence calls should not take a significant amount of time. As such, if you are unable to find the evidence requested by your opponent within 30 seconds of the evidence call, you will run prep time.

Debate is a game. Tech > truth.

Any form of argumentation is fine as long as it is warranted and you can clearly explain it. This includes theory, T, plans, and counterplans. However, I am not familiar with critical arguments, so run Ks at your peril.

I evaluate rounds the way you tell me to. That means the onus is on you to extend links, impacts, and do clear comparative weighing.

I prefer 2nd speaking team responses to be made in 2nd rebuttal. My threshold for new argumentation in 2nd summary is high.

Speaks are off strategy. I just ask that you're clear and understandable. I will be very impressed if you can give a speech while also doing the Golimar Video Song dance From Donga Movie.

CX isn't binding. Tag team CX is fine with me.

You are strongly encouraged disclose if your team has a page on the NDCA PF wiki. You are also strongly encouraged to send me an email chain of your constructive and rebuttal prior to the start of each speech. I will add +1 speaks for disclosure and +0.1 speaks for email chain. sendspeechdochere [at] gmail [dot] com

If you chose to neither disclose nor email chain I may request that you show me the full PDFs of all evidence relevant to my decision at the end of the round.

My threshold for theory is low. For disclosure theory, I'll entertain a shell even if offers to email have been made prior to round. However, if you do run theory, I will hold you to a high standard of technical proficiency.

When it comes to theory, I default to the following absent arguments to do otherwise:

1. Theory is a question of competing interpretations

2. Responding to and being ahead on theory does not automatically constitute a RVI

3. Theory has no implication

4. Topicality is evaluated prior to theory

Reese Grayson Paradigm

Updated for UT tournament 2016

 

Background:

I am a current Economics and Plan 2 student at UT. I debated for Kingwood High School for 3 years and have a broad experience in many events. I have had primary success in LD, PF, World Schools, and Original Oratory. I teach/coach World Schools debate on the side at camps currently. 

 

A few things to avoid:

1. This is more of a problem I have seen in PF. PF debaters love to ask their opponents for the original PDF of more than 2-4 pieces of evidence BEFORE prep time starts. If teams are taking an excessive amount of time to share these documents, I will start deducting speaker points. 

2. I have lately seen an appalling amount of evidence distortion, clipping, and violations. I take evidence misconduct extremely serious. Do so at your own risk. 

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc

 

Overall, I try not to intervene as much as I can, however, I do not believe there to be a perfect "Tab" judge. 

 

Speaker Points: 

I do speaker points a little bit differently. I view speaker points as another mechanism to discourage bad debate practices and a measurement on how well you adapted to your judge. Example: If I say I prefer no spreading in PF, and you spread, you may have "technically" won, but your speaker points did not.  /// Other things include: A lack of signposting, being rude to your opponents. 

 

PF: 

I understand that PF has increasingly adopted a more policy-esque style over the years. However, when it comes to PF, I tend to be more traditional. Run whatever you want if you think it will win you the round, but I will deduct speaker points the more outlandish you get. 

Speed: I am fine with speed reading, but I think PF should overall stay at a more conversational speed. I do not like spreading in PF

Framing: If there is no framing done in the round, I typically default to a consequentialist mindset of whichever impact improves society more. YOU SHOULD WEIGH. 

CP/DISADS: Go for it.

Theory/Topicality: Highly discouraged. Not enough time. If need be, just tell me in a lay friendly way as to why there is an abuse worthy of the ballot. 

K's: I discourage them in PF. From what I have seen and experienced, there is not enough time to fully develop and then debate a K. I am not completely opposed to them. I have seen them rarely structured and executed well. 

 

 

LD: I started out as a heavy traditional LD debater and dabbled in a more "progressive" form of LD towards my Junior and Senior year. I competed on the national curcuit and got a TOC bid my senior year. 

Speed: SLOW DOWN ON TAGS, AUTHOR NAMES, AND PLAN TEXTS. I will be completely honest, I was not the best at flowing when I debated. So if you are going EXTREMELY fast, I will not get everything. Its better to stay on the safe side. I will say clear if you are going too fast. 

Framework: When keeping to the traditional format of LD, I did not have extremely complex philosophocal frameworks. I do not know a heavy amount of philisophical literature. Have a weighing mechanism. Weigh. 

CP/DA/PLANS: I love them. These are my favorite arguments to judge. 

Theory/Topicality: DO NOT SPREAD THROUGH INTERPRETATIONS OR THE 4-6 REASONS WHY I SHOULD GRANT YOU AN RVI/REASONABILITY AT THE BOTTOM. I will not get them down and will not vote off of them. I do not prefer judging theory and I am not particularly good at it. But I understand why it is often needed. I had to run it my senior year in order to be competitive (Which at times I thought was sad). I enjoy a good topicality argument though. If you dont tell me otherwise, I default to reasonability. (I know that is different from the norm). Obviously I do not like judging "trick" debaters or frivolous theory. 

K's: I like them when they are done well. When debating on the national curcuit, I primarily ran critical Aff's and K's. (I focused on performance and Queer literature.) However, most of the time I see them ran terribly and ran for the wrong reasons. If you are going to run a K, go all out. AND EXPLAIN IT. Do not assume I know your literature. Slow down. Explain your logic and reasoning. 

 

 

 

 

 

Faraaz Haque Paradigm

I debated for Kempner High School and competed in all formats of debate specializing in LD and Policy debate on the local and national circuit.

Short Version: I don't care about what you do just be coherent and efficient. I'll vote off anything as long as you give me a reason to do so. Speed is fine.

Pref Shortcut (I feel you, I wouldn't want to read anything either LOL, I read everything except alot of theory)
Framework/Phil: 1
LARP: 1-2
K: 2-3
Tricks: 2
Theory: 4


-Don't be too offensive, but I enjoy jokes of all types. (Good jokes will be rewarded)
-Don't be overly rude to your opponent, but sarcasm is great sometimes
-Make me laugh
-If you have nothing else to say, please sit down
-If you win with at least 2 minutes of time left, sit down and you'll get a 30
-If you have any other questions about this paradigm: ask questions or keep it to yourself idc.

Ryan Hennessey Paradigm

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hennessey%2CRyan

Update TOC 2018

PF:

I'm like a 7-8/10 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4-5 during case and a 7-8/10 in rebuttal where necessary.

If you are the second speaking team and you don't come back to your case in rebuttal, there are going to be some pretty easy extensions in summary (probably) that are going to mean game over for you.

I will vote on a warranted argument (regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theory without a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.

In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Kenneth Lin Paradigm

PF 4 yrs

clean extensions and comparative weighing through summary and ff (start in rebuttal if you want, it only helps). exercise common sense and make it a fun time for everyone = win my ballot.

CLEAN EXTENSIONS INCLUDE A CLAIM WARRANT AND IMPACT

bring me food -> +1 speaks

do wacky shit w evidence like write it urself or be racist/sexist/homophobic -> L 20 :(

ask any questions you have about my judging whenever you want (yes, before speeches are ok but exercise common sense and do not ask during a speech)

extra notes:

no new cards in second summary

i presume first speaking team in the event of no offense.

FAQ:

Do I need to respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal?

you should respond to all OFFENSE in second rebuttal (yea that means turns on ur case, if you don't and the other team goes ham on those turns u r prob screwed). it is probably good to frontline defense too.

Is defense sticky through first summary?

yes, but if it's terminal d i recommend an extension thru first summary anyways

How do I get high speaks?

be strategic and be chill. sass is cool but rudeness isn't. be funny but don't try to hard; i'll know.

Are you ok with speed?

i guess? idk if you can handle it it's good but if it's too fast or unclear for me it'll only hurt you. i'll yell clear once.

Do you evaluate theory/(insert progressive stuff here)?

DO NOT run theory just to read theory against a team you know doesn't know how to respond to it. i will gut check all abuse and i think theory is reserved for flagrant abuse, not just "oh they forgot to fucking read the resolution"

i will ATTEMPT to evaluate everything. if you run a K please dumb it down for me and make the claim warrant impact clear like any other arg.

What's your evidence calling policy?

i will not call in prelims unless the round is super important and close OR i am EXPLICITLY told to by a debater

outrounds i will call for everything important

have fun xd

Sam Loh Paradigm

Sam Loh / Updated for start of '19 season

All email chains: sjloh73@gmail.com

Affiliations/Conflicts:

Debated for Plano West: 2016-2018

Assistant PF Coach Hebron: August 2018 - June 2019 (Temporary Judging Conflict)

Colleyville Heritage: June 2019 - Present (Permanent Judging Conflict)

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I am putting this up here so you don't miss it when reading the whole paradigm. Make sure you read paradigms carefully so there are no "surprises" at the end of the round. Changes have also been bolded in the main paradigm.

With the 3 minute summary change:

-Extensions in summary must include the full argument now (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact) and yes you still need warrants. If you do not extend the full argument, do not expect me to give you offense

-There is no more "sticky defense". Defense must be extended in first summary now or it is dropped

-If you do not do weighing in summary your speaks will tank. I mean it. They literally gave you an entire extra minute.

-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in first summary (adopted from the MSJ KW paradigm). This is to encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.

-That same rule goes for "going for everything in summary". If you are one of those people who thinks more summary time = more case offense to go for, you will not be happy with speaks.

-My threshold for dropping speaks on finding cards has gone down. I am tired of waiting for people to pull up evidence. I will give you 1:30 to find evidence before I start dropping speaks. For every portion of 30s you go over, it's -0.5. I drop the evidence at 3 minutes. If you disclose full text, a doc with proper cut cards, or hyperlink to original ev, you are protected from this.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

o LD/CX Shortcuts (LD/CXers I implore that you also read my LD section for your own sake)

LARP :

Plans, DA's - 1

CP's, PICs - 2

Util Framing - 1/2

Theory - 2 (This probably goes to a 5 if you try going for something like meta meta theory)

T -2/3 (Not super experienced with Extra-T, Effects-T and args of that sort)

K - 3/4 (I should be able to follow generally as long as you warrant well)

Non-Util/Phil Frameworks - 3/4 (Deon is alright, ontology starts becoming tricky)

Non-T Affs - 5

Tricks - 5 (I don't even know what the definition of this is or what it looks like)

o PF'ers looking to do strikes:

- I do not have a preference of "true vs untrue" arguments, if you win the argument, you win offense. Nor do I have a different threshold for the quality of the response that needs to be made. Everything should be warranted. Trying to make unwarranted "truth>tech" responses will hurt your speaks

- I inherently think that all case level arguments are dispositional. I am very unreceptive to "condo good" on case substance.

- I tend to like rounds that are more tech and line by line in nature over slower big picture debates. That being said, I will still evaluate either.

- Aff fiat goes as far as the specific wording of the resolution. The aff does not get to fiat out of procedural negative disadvantages that happen as a result of the passing of the plan (Ex: Politics DAs or NRA control on the UBC topic)

- I am very receptive to progressive arguments. If you are a team that does not want/is unprepared to debate anything beyond case level substance you may want to strike me.

- I am pro disclosure. If you are a team who is adamantly against the practice of disclosure and do not want to risk debating disclosure theory, I would consider striking me.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

PF Paradigm:

Paradigm is kind of long but truth be told I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:

1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim

2) The 2R has to cover turns or I consider them dropped.

3) Defense isn't sticky with a 3 minute summary.

4) CX non binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in speech to try and get out of a concession

5) Don't like "risk of offense" or phrases along the lines of "our ev is good at saying ____"

6) Anything that is not contested in the speech after it is read (except case substance) becomes functionally conceded

7) Need parallelism in summary/ff, offensive extensions must be in both speeches

8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument

9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round

10) no new args/weighing in second ff

11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it (basically dispositional). I will not buy kicks unless you concede defense the opponents have read in which that case is on them. Do not try reading "condo good", I will be very unreceptive

12) PF is a debate event, speaks are given on how well you debate not how well you speak

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences not related to argumentation

-Preflowing: Preferably before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes i'm docking .5 speaks for every extra minute you take.

-Coin Flip: I'll be asking for sides and speaking order before the round starts so I don't really care. Flip outside if you want

-Sitting/Standing/etc.: In perfect honesty, I don't care. If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. It's probably most appropriate if you stand during speeches but if it's a late round and you're tired from running around the tournament all day I don't mind if you sit.

-Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD: General thought- post round discussion is good for the activity.

Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. All I ask is that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.

o Postround me if you want to. I don't dock speaks unless you make morally reprehensible statements. I don't care if you're not directly affiliated with the competitors in the room and are just watching - if you disagree feel free to speak out.

o I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more more beneficial than harmful to the debate space

-Spectators: In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. On the other hand, prelims is a bit of a different story. I very strongly believe that parents or coaches of a team competing in the round should be allowed to watch. I would be pretty upset if a judge told me I wasn't allowed to sit and observe how my kids debate a round. For people non-affiliated (Ex. bringing friends from a different program) : that choice I leave to the debaters. If someone doesn't want them to watch, I'm going to ask them to leave so don't be surprised when that happens. I am also not a fan of people sitting in rounds, flowing the AC and NC and then leaving. If something comes up like you get pulled for a judge assignment, feel free to leave but if I observe anybody consistently engaging in leaving after the first speeches it's probably a tab report.

General Evaluation

I generally consider myself tabula rasa and I’ll evaluate any argument you give me on an offense/defense paradigm as long as it’s properly warranted and impacted. However, given that, don’t run something that’s homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.

-Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.

-I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. The only things I dislike are massive card dumps. However, please be logical as to what needs to be carded. Don't tell me that x has gone down without providing a stat.

-At least for me, well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk

-Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Any of this has to be done in the speech following. Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.

-I won't intervene on abuse unless it's conditional case arguments. If your opponents are being abusive please call them out. However on the flip side the more abusive you are the lower my threshold for how much of an "they're abusive" arg needs to be made for me to consider dropping whatever is being considered abusive. General guidelines: NIBs and other strategy orientated tactics like specific framing will require a shell, super abusive args like conditional cp's and floating pics just require you to point out they're abusive.

-Just for clarification this does not mean that you can just say "they're abusive" when they run theory - you have to engage in the shell debate but there's a higher likelihood I just end up washing more friv theory/t shells and evaluating case as long as you make responses. Additionally, if it's blatantly obvious you're running up against novices, attempting to run anything progressive will tank your speaks.

-Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not be a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.

-If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo. However, I would be willing to listen to arguments in round on going about default otherwise and I think I would be strongly compelled to buy a warranted default first argument

-General Idea: If you don't do a good job responding to terminal defense and just say vote for us on risk, don't expect to win my ballot. Having minimum offense v. having no offense are two completely different things. This is a really big issue with me because I think going solely for "risk" is lazy debate that doesn't require you to win a 100% strength of link into your impact. I'll still evaluate risk but make sure you're not using it to clear untouched terminal defense.

My position on "risk of offense": I think it's reasonable but only to a certain extent. I don't think the aff can expect to win rounds just by saying "risk of offense" without actually responding to anything terminal. This would break the game because if the aff can always win via default risk, neg can't win rounds. I am inclined to give risk of offense that is accessing some kind of weak strength of link into their offense and using risk to emphasize the importance of the possibility of the link triggering the impact. It would be even better if you do the analysis on why risk of that link occurring is so important.

- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.

-Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. Yes, I'm calling those claims because they aren't arguments. Debate isn't I make a claim, you make a claim, and we argue with only claims without thinking about the reasoning those claims are set on. Using these alone will not clear defense for you on my flow and excessive attempts will lose you speaks.

-Meta weighing is important and if such a thing exists, I would be willing to hear arguments about a second layer of meta weighing. If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing

Speech Preferences:

-Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.

-I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.

-If for some reason you feel that it is necessary to go for preemptive frontlines in the 1R I'm fine with it

-If you want to use half or so of your time on the second constructive and the rest of the time responding to opponent case, go for it.

-Highly would prefer line by line (For the majority of you debaters it probably increases your chance of getting my ballot compared big picture)

Framing

-If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your interp or framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my fwork for evaluation. If one side drops their framework, I will default to whichever is left in the round, this includes second constructive if first speaking team presents a framework. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Anytime after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.

-I usually default util absent framing but it may change depending on what I think is the most meaningful interp of the res. Ofc if you present and warrant your own fwork this doesn't really matter

~Philosophy Type Stuff:

-I really don't think any of this will matter since a lot of the depth here is K stuff (reference K's below) but for those who like to use these args as framing

My order of comfort in evaluating goes:

1) Consequentialism - I'm fine with it

2) Deontology - I have some understanding of this, you should be fine as long as you don't go too deep or draw really obscure lines between ideas

3) Ontology - I have a somewhat/very surface level understanding and how it functions in the round. You probably will have to do a bit of explaining of these if you go for them but I might have a very general idea of what you're saying.

4) It's more high theory but I've read a bit of Baudrillard. Do I understand it well? No. I am willing to evaluate it? Sure.

5) Not listed - I'll try my best to understand but chances are I'm going to be completely lost and will have no clue how to evaluate. Would advise you to stay away for the sake of your own W/L record.

Weighing/Collapsing

-Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate but it is still possible to get my ballot if you don't collapse at the cost of speaks.

-I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing in second final unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. If you think it helps start in rebuttal if you really want. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final

-Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.

-No new terminalization of impacts in second final

Extensions

-Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. Like please spend at least a second on it to avoid confusion. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.

-THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact)

-No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new ev in first summary

-First summary must extend defense (I.e. it is no longer sticky). Otherwise it's dropped

-My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then I need you to do some minimal warrant impact extension for me to give you offense

-Shadow extension of turns from rebuttal to ff will be weighed as defense but will not be a voting issue. Turns in this context means a real turn that has both the offensive and defensive implications.

-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....

-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization. Even if the opponents extend the impact, you will need to re-implicate why the turn/s means I vote for you

Progressive arguments:

*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument

-Note that running any of these against novices will tank your speaks

-CP's: Would generally prefer if you don't run these since coaches have differing views on the legality of these in PF but I'll still evaluate them (unless operating under NSDA rules). No conditional cp's - I will have a super low threshold on dropping the arg if you're called out for being abusive. .

-K's: Generally speaking I'll vote off them. Note that I'm not experienced in the K debate and doing anything super far in the realms of LD/CX is probably going to lose me. This is especially true since I haven't read much K lit (Have read some Wilderson, some Baudrillard) so if things aren't explained you probably aren't going to get the result you want. You've been warned.

-Theory: In short I default to reasonability, no rvi, drop the debater

Winning only defense on a shell doesn't constitute rvi

Winning turns on the shell without a CI constitutes a vote on the original interp in the round

Special Note on disclosure theory since it's become somewhat controversial: I personally feel that disclosure makes the debate space better so if you want run disclosure theory, you've got a green light from me. If you want to have a discussion about why disclosure is good or bad, I'd be happy to sit down and have that discussion with you.

-T: Generally follow the same reasoning as theory (posted above). However, note that my threshold for T is higher than it is for theory. If you try to run some crazy policy type extra-t stuff I'm just going to be lost. Reading multiple t shells is ok but make sure you can name advocacies that grant ground.

T Defaults: Competing Interps, No RVI, Drop the Arg, T before Theory

-For roadmaps I'm fine with "x off" as long as you're signposting and tagging each off at the top

-If you plan on reading at a pace much faster than traditional pf please email me speech docs. If not you run the risk of me missing something so that's on you. Please slow down on plan texts, alts, interps, and standard tags. Thanks :)

Spreading and the likes of it:

-If you think your opponents are spreading you out of the round, feel free to slow/clear while they're speaking. I think that in order to have the most functional and fair debate, both sides should have the right to understand what the other team is saying and what their arguments are. Try to keep it reasonable from both ends. If you yell clear when it is very obvious to me that there isn't a need to, you're losing .5 speaks.

-Don't know why people do wpm counts, I don't get the point. I'll clear you if needed. If you think you're running too close to a dangerous boundary you probably are. Email chains/flash to everyone in round is appreciated.

Speaks/Speed:

-TLDR: My range is generally 27-29. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job.

Stats for your own reference:

2018-2019 VPF Year Average: ~28.5 (220 total speakers)

2019-2020 Average (Updated through Gvine): 28 (72 speakers)

-Just because I judged for a policy school does not mean because I can follow spreading because I can't. I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. Too many clears in a row will also lead to speaker point loss

-I personally believe that speaker points should be reflective of both how strategic you are and how well you handle the arguments in the round. Engaging with links, warrants, and similar depth type debate that creates a really good round is the easiest way to get higher speaks. That being said, there are other things that you still have to do. (I.e. responding to opponent's arguments/not extending through ink, collapsing, etc.) Expect average speaks to be around 28.

-General Penalties (This is just a condensed list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):

1) taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)

2) taking too long pull up evidence (.5 for every extra 30s after 1:30), teams who disclose are protected.

3) being non strategic (depends on how hard I think you butcher it, includes no weighing/going for everything)

4) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)

5) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you

6) Too much use of the frontline "Our evidence is very specific in saying ___" instead of engaging with the warranting behind argumentation.

7) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears

8) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices

9) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.

10) Severe evidence misrep. (Trust me you prob. won't want to see your speaks if you do this)

-Bonus speaks. When I say my non-bubble average is 28 I mean my average is a 28. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you

1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)

2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)

3) Cutting at least one cross short when you have no questions left (+.2). Note that you cannot cut the entirety of grand cross for obvious reasons

4) Email chaining/flashing the AR/NR with properly cut evidence gets both partners a .5 speaker point bump

5) At any tournament , disclosure on the NDCA wiki gets you 1 speaker pt bonus. Yes you will get a full speaker point bump.

6) If you have an established page on the PF Circuit Debater Wiki (found here) with something on it/not empty, you get a full 1pt speak bump. Circuit Debater is a great resource for all debaters and I'm encouraging you to use it. If you haven't looked at it you should definitely check it out.

Evidence:

I've changed how I explain this part pretty drastically from how it used to be but the ideas remain mostly the same.

- I do not call for evidence unless I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also tend to base my understanding of your ev based on how it was originally read.

- I would suggest reading cut cards in case and having cut cards for anything you read available. Disclosing is good practice and should be mandated, I'll give you a speaker point bonus. Sending speech docs of cards read in rebuttal is also good and you also get bonus speaks.

-If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm not calling for it because you're not getting the extension on my flow. You should know what your own evidence says and if you're trying to do some shady ev misrep that's a definitive no.

-Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.

-"Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In round, a minute thirty to search, -0.5 speaks each 30s you go over, I drop it at 3 min. In the case I call for ev after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it".

o L20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.

o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it's a flat speaker point penalty for being unorganized and I drop the ev out of the round.

o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.

Round Disclosure:

-I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.

-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.

-No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging. Will get emails of at least one debater from each team so I can copy rfd from ballot onto an email for all of you.

Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of two people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=13261

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=54964

Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round

______________________________________________________________________________________________

LD/CX Paradigm

-If I had more PF teams competing here I wouldn't be judging LD/CX but since you're reading this we're going to have to find a way to make it work.

-If it makes it easier for you to do MJP:

o I never did any LD/CX in high school, just pf. Familiar with structures of CP's/K's/Theory,T and can probably evaluate it on a surface level. I can't follow spreading.

o 2018-2019 Season I judged about maybe 10-12 rounds of LD, 2 at some Dallas local (non bid, relatively small pool), Majority of prelims at UT

-I'm willing to evaluate any standard argument on an offense/defense paradigm and weighing is greatly appreciated (I don't want to have to intervene)

-I reserve the right to drop you for any offensive language

-When making extensions in later speeches, please extend the argument. I don't want just an author name

-I would prefer you to stay away from philosophy because I don't understand it very well.

-For more progressive stuff: As long I think you are doing a good job of engaging with the link story and clash on progressive args, I will reward you with 29-30 speaks hopefully to offer minimum compensation for my lack of ld qualification. If I feel that the debate is revolving around simple stock structure args that are present in every debate space, I will be more picky about speaks (you can reference the pf speaks section above).

-Standard Plan Aff's, DA's, CP's.: I have a general understanding of how these arguments work but if you're doing anything super technical you probably will have to explain it. I don't know what the norms in LD are but please do not read multiple conditional counterplans. Floating pics are not ok either.

-Theory/T: Theory/T comes before case and the default is reasonability no rvi. I had a fair understanding of how these worked in PF but I don't know the norms in LD and you'll have to do explanation and/or analysis on what constitutes abuse for theory. I think I would be lead to believe T more than theory.

-K's: I don't have a great understanding of K debate. I get the link/impact/alt but don't know much about "clash" on k. I haven't read any of the standard LD k evidence so don't expect me to know a lot. I'll try my best to evaluate K but don't expect too much.

-Completely unfamiliar with evaluating >2 Layers so T before K type arguments (or vice versa), meta theory, etc. will require explanation

-If you're reading 3 or more of the same type of off (DA, theory, t, etc.) I need a more specific roadmap. If you are reading any off that is a technical part of ld I will probably need specific explanation.

Speed: If you re planning to spread this is probably where I'm going to have the hardest time following you given my background. Please email me speech docs beforehand and I will clear you if I need to.

William Mason Paradigm

I am a 15+ years, 3 diamond debate coach. Keep your arguments clear and concise.

Speed: If one side drops an argument simply because they are spread out of the round, I will drop it on the flow. Spreading through multiple arguments lessens their impact on this judge.

Seth Phillips Paradigm

General CX/LD/PFD Preferences:

Professionalism and civility are required and weigh heavily in speakerpoints

Standing CX/Crossfire; seated Grand Crossfire; look at judge in CX/Crossfire

Don't use open CX/Crossfire as a crutch (I will dock speaks if it's clear one partner is doing all the heavy lifting)

I may critique after round, but only if both teams request. If I do critique, I will generally not disclose and I will keep it brief as I write a lot on the ballot for the benefit of your coach.

My view on speed (spreading) is that I will flow it, but a speaker should not sacrifice articulation for speed. If articulation is an issue, please slow down as I have some nerve deafness in my left ear, so you must be clear. However, PFD is an event where spreading is highly discouraged.

I'm a rule follower, so if there is a tournament prohibition on open CX, email chains, prompting, etc., don't do it!

CX Argument Preferences:

I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments

I will consider and vote on:

- Disadvantages almost always (i.e., if properly weighed against Aff advantages/turns)

- Counterplans almost always (however, must show solvency for Aff harms and not link to any DAs/other offense against Aff)

- Kritiks rarely (i.e., if properly weighed; compare worlds). Alt needs to compete. "Reject" isn't sufficient.

- Conditionality arguments sometimes (e.g., unless team offering argument argues otherwise, I will assume an unconditional status on all augments offered)

- Theory sometimes (particularly if there is clear evidence of in-round abuse such as over-limiting topic, denying fair ground, etc.)

- Topicality sometimes (e.g., if clear in-round abuse; over-limiting topic)

- Inherency sometimes (i.e., if plan is already in status quo, then no reason to vote for Aff)

- Solvency/Workability almost always (i.e., a plan that doesn't work, doesn't solve for status quo harms/claim advantages and thus doesn't provide a net benefit)

LD Argument Preferences:

If you run policy/critical arguments, I tend to vote as a policy-maker (see CX paradigm above). Traditional Value/Criterion arguments are also fine by me in LD.

I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments.

Empirical examples are as important, if not more important, than reading "unique", esoteric cards.

PFD Argument Preferences:

While I am a coach, this event was designed to be accessible for "lay" judges, so please adapt accordingly.

Empirical examples are very useful and don't necessarily require a source, if general knowledge.

While framework is not essential, it is often helpful in close rounds.

Congressional Debate Argument Preferences:

Speeches:

Structure and content are both essential. In each speech, there should be a clear intro with statement of position on resolution and preview of main points. Main points should be supported by the type of evidence you would expect a member of Congress to rely upon for a speech before the House/Senate. Responses to fellow members and a discussion of how the legislation would impact one's "constituents" are part of the "debate" aspect of this event. Walking transitions between points and when answering questions is expected.

Parliamentary Procedure and PO duties:

Efficiency, use of proper voting procedures and correct motions to move along debate are an obligation of ALL members of the chamber and should not have to be repeatedly prompted by the PO. The PO's primary duties are to keep speech time and recognize speakers/questioners based on a strict, impartial adherence to precedence/recency. Do not run for PO if you do not feel prepared to execute these duties. Serving as PO is never a guarantee of breaking; a PO's performance is weighed against the PO expectations outlined above.

About me:

Speech/Debate Coach at Prosper High School, Prosper, Texas

Licensed Texas Attorney

BA/MA in Communication Studies, Texas Tech University

Doctorate of Jurisprudence, Southern Methodist University

Member of LGBTQ community

Pronouns: Prefer he/him

Muhammad Saad Paradigm

The easiest way to win my ballot is through clarity. I’m a simple judge. Give me clear warrants and impacts and explain why those impacts matter more than your opponents and you’ll win! Run whatever you want to but please make sure you can coherently justify your argument. If I ask myself - “why does this matter?” - there should always be a very clear answer.

Also, just some things that I want you to remember....

1.) I expect the second rebuttal to respond to the arguments made in the first rebuttal (strategy is key here).

2.) I prefer all speeches to be line-by-line.

3.) EXTEND IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS THROUGH EACH SPEECH! That includes final focus and summary. Don’t bring up something in the final focus that wasn’t mentioned in summary (synergy between partners is crucial).

4.) If there is a piece of evidence you want me to review at the end of the round, then explicitly tell me to call for that card in one of your speeches. If you don't ask me to call out any cards, then I have no reason to believe that either team is misrepresenting evidence.

5.) Imagine a situation where you get screwed by a bad judge in a round that you think you should’ve won. When you leave the round and your friends ask you “What happened?”, and you give them that detailed breakdown of the round and why you should’ve won, just remember: Everything you tell them in that moment is what you should tell me in the final focus. I’ve seen way too many rounds where teams just lack focus in their final focus ;).

If you have any questions, please make sure to ask me before the round begins. You never want to lose a round simply because you didn't understand your judge's paradigms/expectations.

Naveen Santhosh Paradigm

8 rounds

Naveen Santhosh /// Seven Lakes '16; TAMU '20 // Updated Jan 2019

I competed public forum debate for all 4 years of high school. I did alright.

I like clarity. Weigh pls. I shouldn't have to think too much after the round ends.

Does 2nd rebuttal have to respond to 1st? --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWATnimbsg8

I am okay with speed. Cringe-dad jokes is an auto 30.

If you read anything that even hints at theory, I will disregard it and tank your speaks. My paradigm does not prevent teams from calling out abuse. Just do not read a shell and ask me to drop the debater, you and I will both be sad.

If you misrepresent/miscut/misconstrue evidence:

Image result for spongebob meme breath in boi

Have fun! Good luck!

Saad Shaikh Paradigm

Suppppp

Just to give you some background on me, I did Speech and Debate all 4 years in highschool, and was a 2 time state qualifier for FX and once for Congress in House. I did receive most outstanding PO, so I have my parliamentary producers down very well.

But off to the real stuff......

PF: When I was taught PF, I was taught that this was the PEOPLE’S DEBATE, so that means anyone can understand what’s going on in this debate no matter where you go.

I base my decisions off my flow, I flow everything in round besides CX (I’ll talk about this later), I take everything from drop contentions, to conceded arguments, extended and weighed arguments.

Flowing: I will flow EVERYTHING I possibly can while you speak your cases. But with this, comes responsibility. SPEED IS FINE WITH ME. But, if I cannot understand, I will say “CLEAR” and after the third time I say it, I will stop typing/writing and that will hurt the RFD I make at the end of the round.

Extending: If you’re extending an argument, please tell me why and provide a card. Do not simply extend something just to prove one small thing in a round. Extend an argument to me so that I know why its value is important to the round. Don’t just extend it just to be all fancy, it will hurt you if you don’t explain why, and if your warrant for it isn’t good as well.

Weighing: When it comes to weighing arguments, same thing as extending. Explain and warrant. As your judge, tell me WHY you want me to weigh certain arguments toward the flow. Did your opponents have a contention here that you countered with an argument that should be weighed because it had a huge impact? Did you have an argument that allowed the round to be shifted more toward you if I weight this certain argument. Weigh according, and not just for giggles.

CX: FOR THE LOVE OF PANCAKES, CX. IS. NOT. A. SHOUTING. MATCH. If it becomes a shouting match, I will deduct speaker points based on how heated/irritating it becomes. Aggressiveness is lovely in PF, but screaming at someone in PF to hurt them or get a point across is flat out rude and will NOT be tolerated by me. When it comes to flowing CX, I usually don’t do it, UNLESS, I hear something that needs to be noted down that goes toward the flow and RFD.

If I see any type of aggression that is just being absolutely insulting, discriminating, or anything that causes your opponents to end up hurt/cry, you will get the lowest speaker points and potentionally, get downed.

PF is supposed to be fun, clean, and adventurous. So please just be nice to each other, because the last thing I want to do is lecture someone on how you shouldn’t be a prick to your opponents.

Things you should do: Please signpost so I know what in pancakes I’m flowing, be nice to each other, and just have fun!! You will have your L’s and W’s here and there, but remember to have fun! Plus two L’s make a W so you’re always winning haha.

Fawaz Siddiqui Paradigm

8 rounds

I won’t evaluate progressive arguments. That being said, I'm fine with most arguments as long as you provide clear and reliable evidence, explanations, and impacts. Just remember this is PF, not LD or CX. I will vote strictly on the flow, so be sure to signpost and make your arguments/extensions very clear. Provide me with a weighing mechanism and some parameters as to how I should evaluate the round. Lastly, make the round interesting and entertaining.

Omer Siddiqui Paradigm

8 rounds

I was more of a traditional PF debater, so I'm not as well-versed or receptive to progressive arguments, so avoid abusive arguments and complicated theory. That being said, I'm fine with most arguments as long as you provide clear and reliable evidence, explanations, and impacts. Just remember this is PF, not LD or CX. I will vote strictly on the flow, so be sure to signpost and make your arguments/extensions very clear. Provide me with a weighing mechanism and some parameters as to how I should evaluate the round. If you impact your arguments but don't tell me how to evaluate them or why they matter more than your opponents arguments, it's hard to make a cohesive case for your side. Line-by-line attacks are super helpful and encouraged. As for speaking, a little speed is fine, but absolutely no spreading. Annunciation and clarity are really important, as it's hard to evaluate your side if I can't understand what you're saying.

Bernadette Toumalin Paradigm

8 rounds

I was in speech & debate throughout high school; participated in PF & LD my first two years of high school & Congress my last 2 years, so spreading is fine as long as I could understand you. (Additional events I participated in OO, DA, Duo, & Poetry.) I have judged other tournaments before in so many events. I will be flowing roadmap & arguments. I will evaluate based upon your framework. It has been 2+ years since I have debated, so I may forget some little things about the event, but overall I know almost everything about PF once I see a debate again.

Minhhy Truong Paradigm

I did PF in middle school and high school and have experience judging both PF and LD.

I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. Rebuttal should be line by line. For summary, I prefer line by line but big picture is fine too. Make sure you weigh though and don't try to answer everything if some points are obviously not relevant/impactful. For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round.

I will call up evidence if there's a specific card that's super relevant to the round.

If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.

Isbah Usmani Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated Public Forum for three years, so speed is fine. If given framework I’ll go through the round with that. I will be flowing, but that doesn’t mean I vote off the flow. Make sure you have clean extensions don’t just say them. Please don’t get over aggressive in cx. If you don’t bring it up in summary then don’t bring anything new in Final Focus. I prefer if you weigh impacts and have voters but if you do a line by line I’m not going to dock points or anything. No one will get below 25 speaker points just don’t say anything offensive. Overall, just have a good time and make it easy for me.

Daniel Wang Paradigm

Strake Jesuit '18 UT'22

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email: dwang22@utexas.edu

+0.1 speaker points everytime you make a Twice/Blackpink song reference in speech. (+0.5 max for each speaker)

PF Paradigm:

UPDATE (3/16/19): Unemployment, poverty, and GDP increase are not impacts. They are internal links. Without any terminal impact, there's no impact to these arguments.

UPDATE (11/26/18): I will begin trying very hard to sort out possible routes to the ballot in the case where the round is extremely muddled instead of just presuming AFF or NEG. However, if the round is incredibly muddled this means I will probably call for many cards and take a long time to make my decision. If you don’t want to wait 25-30 minutes for a RFD, make sure you weigh and collapse hard in the second half of the round and do other things like evidence comparison to make my decision a hell of a lot easier.

Also, after judging a few rounds, I have realized that teams don’t extend impacts—extend impacts if you want my ballot. I will not ghost extend impacts for you. My threshold for extensions is super super low if the impact/arg is just conceded but you need to mention it at least for 1 second in the summary and final focus for me to consider it in the final decision. If you extend a link turn, I will extend their impacts for you unless you have read impact defense in which that applies to your turn as well. This means that you should still impact out your turn so I don’t do that work for you.

Lastly, if they contest your argument, make sure you extend the warrant because extensions without warrants aren’t really extensions.

I also now require defense extensions in the later half of the round. 1st summary does not have to extend defense unless the 2nd rebuttal pulled a James Chen e.g. front-lined their case in which you need to.

-I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, qualified to TFA state 3 years and finished in semis senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year.

-I will most likely flow on my laptop and will be actually flowing, not going on Facebook during speeches, etc.

-Start the email chain before the round if you want the speaker point bonus. Make the subject: Round -- Glenbrooks Finals -- Strake Jesuit HW vs. Millburn CZ" -- that is: "Round -- Tournament Round Number -- Aff Code vs Neg Code." If you don’t email chain, my standards for your evidence are going to be extremely high and I will call for many cards at the end of the round that are relevant to my decision.

-Please be pre-flowed prior to the round. Also please flip before the round. There are more details about that below.

-You can request my flow if you want by either emailing me or telling me after the round. Don't hesitate if you want it. I won't find it weird and it's probably educational that you see what the judge is thinking and how they processed the round.

-If you bring me food or a drink, I will give you increase your speaks by +0.1-0.3 (varies based on what you bring).

-If you have any doubt what I want: Iced coffee typically works with half and half and a little less than normal sugar. Please do not make the coffee look like 50% cream or milk—that’s disgusting. If you bring me thai tea or milk tea (30% sugar, no tapioca, I'll add +.3 speaks).

-Evidence must have author’s last name and last 2 digits of the year i.e. “Smith 17.” If you don’t have this, then it’s not valid evidence under NSDA rules. This means that in rebuttal you need to cite the author’s year of publication and at least the author’s last name.

-Evidence matters a lot to me. You don’t need evidence to make an argument but that argument is going to have a lot less weight especially when going against carded evidence. The “this is logical” argument doesn’t really fly with me especially on topics that are evidence heavy i.e. domestic or foreign policy. Do prep. I like rewarding teams that put hours of work into developing their case and building frontlines to every argument imaginable. I’d rather some decent warranted evidence than good, logical analytics. This means your rebuttals should be evidence-heavy and your cases should be evidence heavy as well. Frontlines should be a solid mixture of good evidence and good analytics.

-Good evidence > lots of bad evidence. Smart analytics > blippy, garbage evidence. Decent evidence > analytics.

-Almost all of your responses should be carded. Logical responses hold little weight in my decision especially in topics that require evidence (hint: pharma requires evidence)

--All concessions of opposing arguments i.e. de-links must occur in the immediate speech after where they were introduced. For example, if someone reads 5 impact turns and then a de-link in the first rebuttal, you must explicitly concede that de-link in the second rebuttal. If you don't and then they extend the impact turns, you cannot come up in 2nd summary and then concede the de-link. If you do, I just won't flow it since that's incredibly abusive to force them to extend offense and then for you to kick it after they already extended offense on the argument.

-THERE IS ONE INSTANCE IN WHICH I WILL INTERVENE. IF YOU MISCUT EVIDENCE, EVEN IF THE OTHER TEAM DOES NOT POINT IT OUT AND I CALL FOR IT OR SEE IT VIA MY EMAIL CHAIN, I WILL PUNISH YOU HEAVILY.

*DISCLAIMER* If you do request my flow, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

-If you have 5 minutes before a round and failed to read my entire paradigm, here is the short version (even though you should have read the whole thing since I'm not including many specifics in here that are important):

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism or sexism good. Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me or make me think that you're not good at debate. Yes, truth is good but I believe that debate is a game and thus functions on a technical level. However, having both tech and truth will typically win you the round. However, I probably lean a little more truth > tech on the disclosure level and evidence ethics level but you still need to win the flow since I am overall tech > truth. (Read Below)

On disclosure theory: Winning AT: Ask Me or AT: I'll Email it is incredibly easy in front of me. There's probably a norm-setting argument that you can win incredibly easily if they refuse to disclose on wiki but say they'll email you, etc.

If they email you, you can still probably read disclosure theory in front of me and I'll still be receptive to args on norm-setting. There's lots of arguments that you can make against those types of conditional planks on the counter-interp. Basically, I will still gladly buy disclosure theory even if an offer to disclose to you privately has been made before the round.

If they say their coach will kick them off, you can still read it if you feel like it. There’s arguments against that argument (like a lot).

B. Conceded arguments are 100% true. There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Also, the implication needs to be there at some point or else I will make it up for you.

C. Evidence ethics are extremely important. At the end of the round I may ask you to compile a doc of all relevant cards and send them. Learn how to use verbatim/paperless debate and make a speech doc. It's 2018 and it's not that hard. Speaker points are also affected by this. Read below for more details. You should disclose. Read below. There are some massive speaker point incentives to disclose. Evidence ethics is also the only time I will intervene. If you make evidence up, that's an auto L-0 and a trip to tabroom. Power-tagging severely (adding countries in, butchering stats) is probably a L with low-speaks.

D. Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for. The 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it. I do not require the first summary to extend defense if the second rebuttal did not address it but the 2nd summary needs to extend summary for it to be in final focus. If the 2nd rebuttal pulls a James Chen strategy, then 1st summary needs to frontline their responses and extend defense on case.

Also, please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred. You can start doing more big picture in Final Focus but make sure you're still winning on the technical level because I really don't care about persuasion. The flow and evidence is the only thing that matters for my decision.

E. Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine. Just make sure you know what you're doing and not trying to execute a progressive strategy for the first time in front of me. Theory/T is fine as well. You can run theory for strategy even if there isn't real abuse. Friv theory is great and theory education is good.

F. Arguments need a claim and warrant at the minimum. You probably should have an impact and implication somewhere, but arguments without warrants are just not considered arguments.

G. If both debaters agree, I will allow you to use whatever is left in CX as prep time or the entirety of CX as prep instead of having to ask questions. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS GRAND CX. You can't skip that lol for obvious reasons as Grand CX would cease to exist basically.

H. There are a lot of different ways to extend evidence. You can say concession of x or you've conceded x. You don't have to say extend each time. That gets way too repetitive but if you want, I don't care. Basically, mention the argument and attempt to mention the author name and you're probably good to go.

I. Line-by-line in every single speech and weigh along the way after each argument (I prefer that). Give implications to each argument. Turns case analysis is the best so if you're winning offense from the case, it turns x on their case. Doing that well will most likely win you the round assuming you're winning offense from case.

J. 2nd Final Focus DOES NOT GET NEW WEIGHING!!!!!!! Weighing is an argument and the 2nd FF does not get to make new arguments. The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. If it came up in either summary, GG. You've conceded a weighing argument and you better pray that you're winning some super strong link or impact defense on that argument to where it's zero-risk.

K. If you call "clear" against your opponent and I think they're clear, you're losing a full speaker point because calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them. It's also really obvious that some teams do it to mess with their opponents.

L. Please don't steal prep time i.e. prep after you stop the timer and say that you are done with prep. Doing so will make me sad and you will be sad when you see your speaks. However, to encourage good evidence norms i.e. keeping your evidence organized and being able to access the evidence quickly, I will allow teams to prep while evidence exchanges are happening. Abusing the rule though will make you sad when you see your speaks i.e. calling for 6 cards in one go.

M. You cannot read contradictory arguments in the later half of the round. For example, if someone goes for 4 minutes of impact turns on your case, you cannot de-link yourself or non-unique it unless they also have read a de-link in which case they are stupid. Also, the same thing goes for conceding a link turn and then reading impact turns to your own case. No, just no. Don't do it.

However, you should probably read the whole paradigm because most of it is important. Also, I understand this paradigm is probably EXTREMELY long but I'm just very ideological about debate and have a lot of beliefs. Also, as a debater I liked very long and detailed paradigms so I decided to do this.

Eric Webb Paradigm

8 rounds

Experience: I did PF for four years in high school in the Colorado circuit and a bit on the national circuit.

First half: read dates with your cards, this is part of NSDA rules. I personally don't think you need to spend time reading definitions in case. If you read framework please make sure you have a card and an independent warrant, instead of just asserting something.

Please signpost clearly in rebuttal so I can flow your responses. I prefer for the second speaking rebuttal to frontline their own case, but if you don't that's alright.

Extensions: just reading the author and date is not extending an argument/card. I need the actual warrants/logic extended. I will only vote on offense extended in summary and final focus. Terminal defense does not need to be extended in first summary.

Weighing: please clearly analyze argument's strength of link and/or impact calculus in summary and final focus. Impact calculus is more than just saying "scope/magnitude/timeframe/probability" it's giving an actual warrant for why your impact outweighs theirs. I typically think that arguments with a strong strength of link/probability are more compelling than arguments with an unclear or improbable link but larger impacts on scope/magnitude. Be cognizant of comparing dissimilar impacts, democracy vs economic growth e.g., make your analysis very clear for why your impact is more important. I like teams that go more for one argument in great depth rather than several arguments that aren't well developed.

Pet peeves: there's no need to ask everyone if they're ready, ask for an offtime roadmap, say "time,, starts,, now!" , etc. Just tell me which flow you're starting on (i.e. "pro then con") and if you have an overview/new argument, which I prefer to flow on a new sheet. Please time yourselves.

Also, I don't count evidence exchanges toward prep time but please don't abuse this (don't take 5 minutes to read one card or ask for every card in their case, eg) and do not prep while exchanging evidence.

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round.

Gabriel Williams Paradigm

8 rounds

cw stuff: If there is discussions of suicide in either the aff or neg, please tell me before round, or send me email.

Short version: Debate is what you make of it, do what you want, impact out your arguments.

Overview: I debated primarily UIL policy and some TFA in high school. I currently debate for UH. While I think debate should primarily be an educational space, I also think it has a lot of value to be a home or a community, or even a game, if that is how you view it. I am fine with the vast majority of arguments, with a few caveats.

Speed: Speak clearly and loudly, if you can do that, I will probably be fine with whatever speed you normally go at. You should also slow down on your cards tags and analytics. Your not meant to spread through those, and chances are if you do, I will find it very difficult to actually flow your arguments. If I do have difficulty hearing you, I will say clear three times before I give up on flowing.

Speaker points: While I do reward clarity I will also use speaker points to reward good strategic choices as well as good line-by-line. I usually go from 27-29, with 28 being my average. I have not yet awarded a 30, as I have not judged a debater that I think is good enough to deserve one.

T/FW: I have no view one way or the other on the framework question. As for T against policy affs however, I am unlikely to vote on it unless the aff is clearly untopical.

Theory: Can be a good thing, but is usually a bad thing. If you read these arguments, don't read them just to waste time or to setup some "they drop this one blippy argument so they lose" situations.

Disclosure: Is a good thing and should be the community norm. Just disclose so I don't have to judge these debates, because it puts me in a bad spot.

DAs: To win a DA, you need to at least be winning risk of a link as well as the impact and uniqueness. You should also give me a clear story in the 2NR and good impact framing to vote for you.

CPs: Consult CPs are probably bad, beyond that everything else is fair game. I don't lean any particular way on the rest of the theory stuff here but I am also not as familiar with every different type of CP, so you should probably hold my hand and explain these more for me, and why they solve the aff.

Ks: College Policy is slowly turning me into a k hack, so I am pretty familiar with the mechanics of these. I am not as familiar with the lit though, so if it's anything more complex then "cap bad" you should probably explain your jargon to me.

K Affs/Planless Affs/Untopical Affs: See FW above. While I don't lean any particular way on that question, I still think the aff should be related to the topic. If you just decide to forego the topic entirely I am much more likely to lean neg on framework.

Performance: See K affs. Cards aren't totally necessary but would be nice to have in the 1AC/1NC, as I am honestly still not entirely sure how I am supposed to flow a performance.

Case Debates/Case Turns: I really love case turns and they are some of my personal favorite arguments next to a few k arguments, but I also think case debate is probably a lost art. I will absolutely vote on presumption and would love to see more 2NRs just go hard in on case.

Other stuff:

My email is gwilliams8904@gmail.com I would like to be on the email chain.

Be nice, debate should be safe space and you shouldn't do anything violent or mean to debaters.

Gabriel Williams Paradigm

8 rounds

cw stuff: If there is discussions of suicide in either the aff or neg, please tell me before round, or send me email.

Short version: Debate is what you make of it, do what you want, impact out your arguments.

Overview: I debated primarily UIL policy and some TFA in high school. I currently debate for UH. While I think debate should primarily be an educational space, I also think it has a lot of value to be a home or a community, or even a game, if that is how you view it. I am fine with the vast majority of arguments, with a few caveats.

Speed: Speak clearly and loudly, if you can do that, I will probably be fine with whatever speed you normally go at. You should also slow down on your cards tags and analytics. Your not meant to spread through those, and chances are if you do, I will find it very difficult to actually flow your arguments. If I do have difficulty hearing you, I will say clear three times before I give up on flowing.

Speaker points: While I do reward clarity I will also use speaker points to reward good strategic choices as well as good line-by-line. I usually go from 27-29, with 28 being my average. I have not yet awarded a 30, as I have not judged a debater that I think is good enough to deserve one.

T/FW: I have no view one way or the other on the framework question. As for T against policy affs however, I am unlikely to vote on it unless the aff is clearly untopical.

Theory: Can be a good thing, but is usually a bad thing. If you read these arguments, don't read them just to waste time or to setup some "they drop this one blippy argument so they lose" situations.

Disclosure: Is a good thing and should be the community norm. Just disclose so I don't have to judge these debates, because it puts me in a bad spot.

DAs: To win a DA, you need to at least be winning risk of a link as well as the impact and uniqueness. You should also give me a clear story in the 2NR and good impact framing to vote for you.

CPs: Consult CPs are probably bad, beyond that everything else is fair game. I don't lean any particular way on the rest of the theory stuff here but I am also not as familiar with every different type of CP, so you should probably hold my hand and explain these more for me, and why they solve the aff.

Ks: College Policy is slowly turning me into a k hack, so I am pretty familiar with the mechanics of these. I am not as familiar with the lit though, so if it's anything more complex then "cap bad" you should probably explain your jargon to me.

K Affs/Planless Affs/Untopical Affs: See FW above. While I don't lean any particular way on that question, I still think the aff should be related to the topic. If you just decide to forego the topic entirely I am much more likely to lean neg on framework.

Performance: See K affs. Cards aren't totally necessary but would be nice to have in the 1AC/1NC, as I am honestly still not entirely sure how I am supposed to flow a performance.

Case Debates/Case Turns: I really love case turns and they are some of my personal favorite arguments next to a few k arguments, but I also think case debate is probably a lost art. I will absolutely vote on presumption and would love to see more 2NRs just go hard in on case.

Other stuff:

My email is gwilliams8904@gmail.com I would like to be on the email chain.

Be nice, debate should be safe space and you shouldn't do anything violent or mean to debaters.

Sufyan Yousaf Paradigm

8 rounds

Background: I did PF at Kempner for 4 years and have received a TOC bid/broke at TFA state multiple times.

TL;DR: The easiest way to win my ballot is through clarity. I’m a simple judge. Give me clear warrants and impacts and explain why those impacts matter more than your opponents and you’ll win! Run whatever you want to but please make sure you can coherently justify your argument and if I ask myself - “why does this matter?” - there’s a very clear answer. Overall, I want you to be relaxed and have a great time so DON'T STRESS IT and do your best!

Specifics

1. EXTEND IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS THROUGH EACH SPEECH! That includes final focus and summary. Don’t bring up something in the final focus that wasn’t mentioned in summary.

2. Imagine a situation where you think get screwed by a bad judge in a round you think you should’ve won. When you leave the round and your friend asks you, “What happened?” and you give him that detailed breakdown of the round and why you should’ve won just remember: Everything you tell him in that moment is what you should tell me in the final focus. I’ve seen way too many rounds where teams just lack focus in their final focus ;).

3. Please be polite and professional in CX. Trust me, I can tell when an argument doesn’t logically follow through. You don’t need to waste time being excessively rude and dominant just to get your point across to me. At the same time, I won’t mind if you cut your opponents off every now and then if they’re being clearly excessive in their answers. You have to make the judgement call but just know if you continuously make the wrong call it will definitely reflect in your speaks. Just think “professional and polite” and you’ll be good!

gabe williams Paradigm

8 rounds

cw stuff: If there is discussions of suicide in either the aff or neg, please tell me before round, or send me email.

Short version: Debate is what you make of it, do what you want, impact out your arguments.

Overview: I debated primarily UIL policy and some TFA in high school. I currently debate for UH. While I think debate should primarily be an educational space, I also think it has a lot of value to be a home or a community, or even a game, if that is how you view it. I am fine with the vast majority of arguments, with a few caveats.

Speed: Speak clearly and loudly, if you can do that, I will probably be fine with whatever speed you normally go at. You should also slow down on your cards tags and analytics. Your not meant to spread through those, and chances are if you do, I will find it very difficult to actually flow your arguments. If I do have difficulty hearing you, I will say clear three times before I give up on flowing.

Speaker points: While I do reward clarity I will also use speaker points to reward good strategic choices as well as good line-by-line. I usually go from 27-29, with 28 being my average. I have not yet awarded a 30, as I have not judged a debater that I think is good enough to deserve one.

T/FW: I have no view one way or the other on the framework question. As for T against policy affs however, I am unlikely to vote on it unless the aff is clearly untopical.

Theory: Can be a good thing, but is usually a bad thing. If you read these arguments, don't read them just to waste time or to setup some "they drop this one blippy argument so they lose" situations.

Disclosure: Is a good thing and should be the community norm. Just disclose so I don't have to judge these debates, because it puts me in a bad spot.

DAs: To win a DA, you need to at least be winning risk of a link as well as the impact and uniqueness. You should also give me a clear story in the 2NR and good impact framing to vote for you.

CPs: Consult CPs are probably bad, beyond that everything else is fair game. I don't lean any particular way on the rest of the theory stuff here but I am also not as familiar with every different type of CP, so you should probably hold my hand and explain these more for me, and why they solve the aff.

Ks: College Policy is slowly turning me into a k hack, so I am pretty familiar with the mechanics of these. I am not as familiar with the lit though, so if it's anything more complex then "cap bad" you should probably explain your jargon to me.

K Affs/Planless Affs/Untopical Affs: See FW above. While I don't lean any particular way on that question, I still think the aff should be related to the topic. If you just decide to forego the topic entirely I am much more likely to lean neg on framework.

Performance: See K affs. Cards aren't totally necessary but would be nice to have in the 1AC/1NC, as I am honestly still not entirely sure how I am supposed to flow a performance.

Case Debates/Case Turns: I really love case turns and they are some of my personal favorite arguments next to a few k arguments, but I also think case debate is probably a lost art. I will absolutely vote on presumption and would love to see more 2NRs just go hard in on case.

Other stuff:

My email is gwilliams8904@gmail.com I would like to be on the email chain.

Be nice, debate should be safe space and you shouldn't do anything violent or mean to debaters.