I have 5 years of experience in public forum debate and 3 years of experience in policy 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 you explain why I should prefer it over your opponent's framework.

I prefer policy-based arguments (CP/DA/Case) over K's.

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.

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.

I did not debate as a student. I have previously judged about 7 rounds of PF, about 5 rounds of LD, and about 3 rounds of CX. 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.

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.

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

*Updated for January 2020*

St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21

Email: cara.day@utexas.edu

Or FB message me with questions

I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. RJ Shah also continuously asks me to coach him. In high school, I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.

General/TLDR

-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.

-Vroom Vroom: Go as fast as you want. 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, tank your speaks, and throw my computer at you. 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. ** 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.

-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence or planning a hostile takeover) -- 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

-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting (Roman Candles are highly encouraged). 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. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).

- CX is binding

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

- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.

- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)

-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you call it an off-time roadmap, I won't be flowing you speech because I'll be too busy cleaning tears off of my keyboard due to my loss of hope for this activity.

-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. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)

Speaks

I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: go for the right things in later speeches and don't be bad. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.

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.

If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/

If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.

For PF:

General

Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.

Rebuttal

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).

Summary

My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, any defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.

Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.

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. Man ... it better be ...

If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.

Final

I'm fine with new weighing in final, as long as it's comparative because I think this is what final is for -- contextualization and weighing to win the round, otherwise the round could just stop after summary.

First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.

Ks/Theory/T/CPs/etc.

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. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.

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.

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: 2

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.Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.

FW: I'm a philosophy major, 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 default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. 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.

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 1st rebuttal (if its offense in case). 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 bad args like extinction (unless you really convince me it will happen!). 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.

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

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.

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 the 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.

LD - Based on what LD generally looks like now, you probably don't want to pref me. I strongly prefer a more traditional style of debate. Will I listen to anything? Yes. Will I be annoyed? Yes.

Congress - Analysis ✔ Sources ✔ A conversational style ✔ Good clash ✔. A good PO will probably make my ballot, but I strongly prefer the good speakers. I just read Neal White's Congress paradigm, and I agree with everything he said.

*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*

I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas.

Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.

You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.

Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.

I did four years of PF and graduated in 2018. I won’t know anything about the current topic, so please be clear and define topic jargon! I am also a speaks fairy in a way. SIGNPOST!!!!!

I'd like to think as little as possible, pls do the thinking for me : - ) You can make this easier by signposting, warranting every argument, implicating what each argument means, and collapsing early in the round.

I'm good with average fast PF speaking but prob not spreading (do not worry about speed if you are good with it) - I will flow off a speech doc but please don't abuse it to spam turns. I'll say clear twice

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; defense sticks through first summary if it's not touched in the rebuttal (but it's good to extend terminal defense).

Weigh as early as you can; I won't look to new weighing in the FF.

I'll only call for evidence if it’s disputed or sketchy/someone explicitly tells me to call for it.

I never did progressive debate so I have a very sparse understanding of how it works; if you read progressive args, please be very clear & try to frame them as traditional arguments. I'll do my best to evaluate them (although I don't prefer to).

other stuff:

Do not argue in cross it doesn't help anyone

Keep your own time please!

down to skip grands

do not come off as overly tryhard and condescending i WILL tank your speaks, debate honestly and cleanly

Don't be rude/sexist/ableist/racist/etc, respect pronouns, and use content warnings. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me (kennethhlin1@gmail.com) if you feel at any point unsafe in round.

Debate is hard - be cool, have fun!

*TOC* '22 - Helping some kids out, guess I'm back just for this one tournament

Conflicts: Walt Whitman DP and Marist School

Background: Plano West Class of '18, Was affiliated with Hebron ('18-19), Colleyville Heritage ('19-20), The Marist School ('20-21), Worked with debaters from Plano East ('19-21), Coppell ('19-21), Westlake ('19-20), and Walt Whitman ('20-21)

If you're really that curious about anything else check judging record I guess.

My speaks used to average in the mid 27's if that matters

I don't even know why I have to say this, safety is critical to participation, if you make the round unsafe it's a stop the round L0, trip to tab

Top level notes (I.e. Important Stuff):

-I have not been involved in circuit debate since this tournament last year. I have not thought about arguments, I have not done research, I have not coached. My level of competency for fast, technical debates is undoubtedly lower than it used to be

-Arguments and styles that appeal to a lay audience are both good and useful but do not confuse this with the "truth > tech" nonsense. Full link chains are still required and any argument is founded on a warrant. Conceded arguments are 100% true, I don't care how ridiculous you make them out to be. If you think they're non-sensical the burden's on you.

-Speeches are meant to build on top of one another. The role of the rebuttal is to address offense - this means you should be covering turns/disads/etc. in the 2R. No, "sticky defense" is not a thing. What is in summary should be in final focus and vice versa. No new arguments in the second final focus, that's ridiculous.

-You should be weighing. Weighing should be comparative. Weighing is an argument and therefore should be warranted. Weighing should be introduced as. early. as. possible.

-Your backhalf extensions ought to be extensions of the full argument. UQ -> Link -> I. Link -> Impact. Don't forget the warrants or the impact, those are kinda important and tend to be left out more often than not.

-Crossfire does not matter, I do not listen to crossfire, I'm probably writing notes on the ballot. If something important happens in cx bring it up in speech proper

Other Stuff:

-Progressive arguments? Used to be okay with them, now it's a run at your own risk. I probably don't remember much. I was kinda a disclosure and paraphrasing-bad hack but if you win the argument you win the argument. No I will not vote on impact turns that teams should lose for disclosing or cutting cards. Yes you need an offense to win an RVI. Yes you automatically lose if it's competing interps and you don't defend a competing interp. Yes theory is apriori to case.

-Speed? I used to be able to process things pretty quick but I'm old now and out of practice so my brain probably can't handle super speed too well. Go at your own risk.

-Evidence? If I can resolve the round without looking at evidence, I will not call for evidence. I will not call for evidence if the round is difficult to resolve. However, I will call for evidence if I am told to do so and it affects the outcome of the round or if I am told that evidence is misrepresented or miscut. If your evidence ethics are hot steaming garbage that's an easy way to get L20. You've been warned

-Presumption? Used to presume neg, I guess that's still a thing? Convince me otherwise, y'all are debaters.

-Speaks? Speaks for content, I don't care about delivery unless I can't understand you. You get three clears before I put my pen down. If you've disclosed, remind me and I'll bump you.

If you have any other questions please ask. I've undoubtedly forgotten something that's probably important

I am a 20+ years, 3 diamond debate coach. I am a flow judge, and I will judge what I see to the best of my ability.

Speed: If one side drops an argument simply because they are spread out of the round, I will drop it on the flow. Some speed is fine if it's clear.

Lincoln Douglas - A value and standard are the basis for this debate style. Therefore your framework should link in to your case and be upheld in the round. My opinion is that morality as a value is equal to not having a value. But if the debater wants to kick out the value and have me vote on the standard, I'll do that. See policy below about Critical Affs.

Public Forum - Speed is one thing, spreading is another. I'm flexible on extending the case in the rebuttal, but I prefer not to hear an entire half of the case in the rebuttal speech. Please don't ask about standing during Crossfire. If you CAN stand, please do. This is debate. Most Ks I've seen have just been generic DAs that the debaters CALLED a K, so I'm generally good with that. Plans and Counterplans are extra and unnecessary to the resolution, but fine with me if the debaters want to argue it. Otherwise, I will judge what I see in the round and do my best NOT to impose my own preference to style or arguments.

Policy - I prefer stock, but will vote on what you give me. I'm open to a lot. However, a critical AFF is NOT fair or educational. Period. Schools and coaches voted on this topic and you chose to ignore it. I don't care if you posted your case on another website (Wiki). There is nothing about posting on a wiki in the National or state rules and procedures. Same is true for LD regarding critical affs.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

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:

Member of LGBTQ community

Pronouns: Prefer he/him

Licensed Texas Attorney

BA/MA in Communication Studies, Texas Tech University

Doctorate of Jurisprudence, Southern Methodist University

Former Speech/Debate Coach at Prosper High School, Prosper, TX

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 // Seven Lakes '16; TAMU '20 // Updated June 2020

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

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? Yes pls.

I am okay with speed. Being nice and funny helps your scores.

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: Not good.

Have fun! Good luck!

2023-2024 Season

Howdy! I've been actively judging every year since I graduated in 2018, so this will be year 6 of judging for me.

PF/LD General:

- NO EMAIL CHAINS AT ALL. If you ask me to be on the email chain, this indicates you have not read my paradigms.

-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk in the room. If you come in saying you need to pre-flow or take forever to get set up, I WILL doc your speaks to 27 max. Pre-flows, bathroom, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.

Prep time: I will usually use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to make sure you're not lying about how much time you have left. When someone asks for cards, please be quick about this because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.

-I will NOT disclose decisions unless I say I will. After round is done, do not just sit there and just stare at me. I will let you know if everything is going to be on the ballot or if I will be giving some general comments.

-Please be respectful in round and have fun!

PF: Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal and please no spreading. Moderate speed is fine, it's PF, not CX.

Treat me like I don't know anything about the topic, it's not rocket science.

LD: Old school traditional, I like framework debates. NO SPREADING AT ALL, moderate speed is good. I don't understand progressive debates like K's, shells, etc. Adapt or strike me.

Congress: If you author or sponsor, please EXPLAIN the bill and set a good foundation. For later speeches, I don't want to hear the same argument in different fancy words. Be unique and CLASH is NOT OPTIONAL throughout cycles.

PO's: If there is no one who can PO and you know how to, please step up. I used to PO so don't worry. If there's no one who can PO, don't be afraid to step up and try, I'll take that into consideration when I do ballots.

Remember this is DEBATE, not repetition. I don’t wanna hear the same thing for 5-6 speeches straight.

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.

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.

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.

Background:

I debated Public Forum for 4 years in high school on the local and occasionally national circuits, and my partner and I attended TFA state 3 times. Because I am not involved with high school debate any more beyond occasionally judging, please keep in mind that I will have only basic knowledge of the topic (i.e. background and some popular args) prior to the round; I won't be as familiar with the intricacies/niches of the topic as you are.

General philosophy:

As a judge, I want to be as impartial as possible and bring the least bias into my analysis that I can. That means the more legwork you do in round, the better your chances; don't just present me with arguments, tell me exactly why your impacts are more important than those of your opponents. I try not to connect the dots beyond what you tell me in the round, so make sure you take the time to present your full case well. With that in mind, the path to a dub can be simple :-)

PF:

A few general guidelines:

If it's important, it's on you to let me know it. Again: in general, I try not to put my own analysis on material presented in-round. This means that my decision on the ballot won't be founded on indicts I thought of but that weren't presented by your opponents (ex: you have a great card but I can think of a few arguments your opponents could present against it- they aren't brought up by your opponent, so I still weigh the card). This means you need to tell me exactly why I should circle your name on the ballot: I won't vote on stuff you don't tell me.

Within reason, progressive arguments are ok. I prefer more traditional PF arguments, but definitely won't vote you down for progressive stuff; if you argue it well and show why it's topical, I will take it into consideration. Plans and counterplans are ok with me as long as you can fit it into the context of PF. Ks are ok but not my favorite. I generally don't vote off theory.

Debate structure (overall):

Extend cleanly. It just makes for a better debate. And if it isn't in summary, odds are I won't vote off it in final focus.

Sign post before and during your speeches! This helps you by making sure I can easily flow everything you're saying.

State the authors/dates of your cards! HOWEVER, you should also continue to summarize/analyze your evidence as you extend it. For instance, don't just tell me your opponent's argument falls because they dropped Brown 14, remind me what Brown 14 says and why that means I should discount the argument in question.

I don't flow crossfire. I will listen, but if something important happens during it, it's on you to remind me of it by bringing it up in your subsequent speeches.

Framework is really important, as is weighing. Your analysis is the key to the ballot. Left with a bunch of impacts from both sides at the end of the round, I don't want to decide which are more or less important on my own: it is vital that you not only emphasize your impacts in round, but also tell me why those impacts are more significant than those of your opponents via weighing/framing the round. Don't forget that these tools aren't only useful in the final focus! It is highly preferable if you employ them throughout the round.

Specific speeches:

Rebuttals should be line-by-line, and I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to spend some time responding to the first-speaking team's attacks.

Summaries can be line-by-line or big-picture/voter-style. This is a decisive speech, in which you can drop arguments that aren't going over well and bring up new defenses for the last time (although I don't generally love the second-speaking team bringing up new evidence in their summary). You don't have to address everything in the round, just those arguments (defense, offense, and framing) that you want me to vote off of.

Final focuses need to cleanly weigh out the impacts of remaining arguments and tell me exactly why, according to your framework, these win you the round. As I said, I generally won't weigh arguments brought up here that weren't cleanly extended in the summary.

What to avoid:

Arguments or evidence founded in prejudice will NOT be tolerated. Using these biases (racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.) in round will likely count severely against you in terms of speaks and possibly even the decision on the ballot if it's prevalent enough in the round.

Rudeness. This includes personal attacks on opponents, loud talking or disruptive behavior during opponents' speeches, disrespect/talking over opponents during crossfire, etc. I appreciate and welcome clash, but staying courteous in the midst of a heated argument is one mark of a skilled debater. If sarcasm and humor are part of your personal 'style,' just make sure you remain respectful. Unnecessary disregard of others in the room reflects very poorly on you.

Abuse of time. It is very important to keep rounds running on time to stay current with the tournament schedule. As such, wasting time in round will reflect poorly on you. So please pre-flow before the round! I understand needing a few minutes to get set up and ready for the round, but beyond a quick setup period, try to avoid additional delays. Also, I will be keeping track of speech times and prep, but I expect you to do so as well. When speech time is over, finishing your sentence is fine, but that's it. When evidence is called for, I expect you to be able to find it in a timely manner, and if not, we will need to continue the debate. You shouldn't be using the time it takes your opponent to find a card you called for to prep, unless you have notified everyone you will be doing so. Feel free to call your opponents on it if they are out of prep.

Speaker points:

I will give speaks typically ranging from 26-29. 26 or below if you did something offensive, blatantly abusive, etc (see 'what to avoid' list above for examples). 30 if you blew me away with presentation, knowledge, etc. Speed is fine, but no spreading please, and make sure you're speaking clearly if you do go fast.

LD:

I haven't debated LD, so I'm more lay when it comes to this format. For the most part, my PF paradigms above still apply, and it's extra important for you to connect the dots for me here since it's not the format I'm used to. I'm not accustomed to spreading, but won't fault you for it in speaks (within reason) as long as it's still intelligible; however, I give no promises that I will be able to catch everything you say if you speak too fast for me. Feel free to send me your case at sws5@rice.edu.

* Please don't hesitate to ask me questions you still have before the round!

** Unless you ask me not to or the tournament is running extremely behind, I will give a verbal RFD. Also, feel free to ask me additional questions after the round.

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.

Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.

Flay <--------------------------*Me*------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge

*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob

General

E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com

With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.

DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.

CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.

Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.

K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.

If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.

1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.

2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.

3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.

4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.

____________________

Other notes:

Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.

Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.

Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.

Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.

Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...

Open CX is okay with me.

Tech > Truth most of the time

No Tricks

ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.

PF Specific Notes

I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.

Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.

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. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner arguments that are dropped on the flow unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.

Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.

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

IE

All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.

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.

I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemp for Seven Lakes High School, and also did college speech at UT Austin, where I currently attend.

- I’ll vote off any argument as long as it’s logical and has a claim/warrant/impact (the basics).

- When you’re extending don’t just give me the author’s name (i.e. Extend Smith), actually tell me what you’re extending, and make sure you cleanly extend what you think is important throughout the round, since I won’t do it for you.

- The second speaking team should expect to defend in their rebuttal.

- Clarity is key. Signpost if you’re going to be jumping around, and WEIGH. Provide a clear weighing mechanism and tell me why I should prefer it. Collapse and crystallize as the debate goes on. I really like impact weighing and voters in the FF. Just make everything as clear as humanly possible.

- Don’t intentionally distort evidence and don’t bring up new evidence in the summary/FF

- If you run progressive arguments, I’ll likely not be familiar with how to evaluate them, and that’ll be unfortunate for both of us.

In terms of general protocol, I don’t care if you stand/sit/take off your jacket/wear pajamas, etc. Don’t be offensive or unethical. Make it entertaining and have a good time!

Strake Jesuit '18, University of Texas at Austin '22

Creator of the PF wiki

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit, Plano West

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

Email:dwang18@mail.strakejesuit.org

***Just my personal thought: "flow/tech" judges that refuse to vote on theory (esp disclosure) are worse than lay judges. ***

"Flow" judges or just people in general who refuse to vote in disclosure theory or other progressive arguments are the worst judges on the circuit and are carcinogenic to the activity (I said it). It's like saying I won't evaluate x case argument because I don't agree with it personally even if the debate is heavily one-sided in-round. All the arguments against it are just bad.

***Disclosure bad is the worst argument I've ever heard but if you win cause your opponents can't debate I guess I'll buy it***

Disclosure is also a true argument but tech > truth.

-Interp texts must be sent -- this includes CIs as well and is NOT negotiable

SECOND REBUTTAL/SUMMARY OBLIGATIONS -- A SCENARIO ANALYSIS:

The second rebuttal must respond to turns -- this is not negotiable. However, responding to defense in second rebuttal is optional. First summary obviously needs to extends turns if they want to go for it, but let's dive into some scenarios about defense.

Scenario A: The second rebuttal only responds to turns and not defense. This means that the first speaking team does not need to extend defense. Extending defense in the first summary doesn't matter because I will allow the second summary to frontline. You can read new evidence/warrants on their case, but defense extensions do not matter in the first summary. If you do extend defense, they will still be allowed to respond, but you can make clarifications or make new arguments if you desire.

Scenario B: The second rebuttal responds to turns and some pieces of defense. The first summary needs to extend those pieces of defense that were contested or else if the second summary extends frontlines from second rebuttal, I will view that as conceded and final focus will not be allowed to make new responses. The first-speaking team does not need to extend or mention defense that was not touched by the second rebuttal unless they want to make new arguments/read new evidence.

Scenario C: The second rebuttal responds to everything on the flow. The first summary needs to extend their pieces of defense that they want to go for. If they do not and the second summary extends their frontlines, then that is conceded by the first-speaking team.

- All evidence read including evidence in rebuttal or summary must be sent on an email chain. To save time please start the email chain before the round. Format the subject as "Blue Key 2021-- Round # -- AFF Team Code vs NEG Team Code" please.You have 1 minute to send the doc after ending prep -- virtual debate has been around for almost 2 years. It shouldn't take any longer to save, drag the doc into the email, and hit send. Anything longer means that you are stealing prep and you will be sad when you see your speaker points at the end. I want Word documents sent, not the awful thing that exists called Google Docs. It's 2021, please learn how to use Verbatim (it's been around forever)

- Because we are virtual, please try to be more clear. I will not flow along the email-chain but based on what you say. I will only use that to view evidence quality. If you're unclear or going too fast, I won't flow that argument, but I will go back and look if you cut out or there are technical difficulties on either my end or yours.

- You may not and I repeat MAY NOT spread any paraphrased evidence -- literally the worst thing to happen to this event. If you do, everything spread will be treated as analytics.

- Running progressive arguments badly is a good way to make me cry

- I have not prepped this topic at all -- do not assume I know common literature or arguments or acronyms

- VBI theory bad article is objectively false

- Is paraphrasing bad?? Probably-- but read theory if you think it is.

- Clarity of Impact is not a weighing mechanism

-Always True: Impacts such as unemployment or poverty or econ loss are not terminal impacts. Instead, they are internal links into something tangible which then can be a terminal impact.

Speaker point incentives are all under here:

-Disclosing on NDCA PF Wiki (good disclosure) -- +0.3/person + not risking a L on disclosure theory. Tell me if you disclose because I'm not checking every round. Must be at least 30 minutes before each round.

-Winning on disclosure theory -- very good speaks if you do it well

TKO: Technical Knockout.If you at any point in the debate believe that you have won the debate without a reasonable doubt i.e. a conceded theory shell, total domination on substance, zero extension from the other team, or a double turn, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team basically has no plausible routes to the ballot, I will give both speakers on the winning team aW-30 and the other team whatever they deserved. However, if I see some plausible ways for them to win that they can take (absent some hail mary whack route that they probably won't take) I will give you-1.5-3.5 pointsfrom whatever you deserved at that moment in the round. This is depending on how bad your judgement was/how close you were to being right. If you call it when getting destroyed, that's probably -3.5 points. Yes, this is somewhat subjective but really rewarding and fun and a great way to get high speaker points from me. If you call it after second FF, you're getting no higher than 26 speaks since the round is already over and you're a goon.

Generics:

- I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, won a few bid tournaments, qualified to TFA state 3 years and ended in semi-finals my senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year going 6-1 in prelims

- Please be pre-flowed before the round and flip before the round so that I don’t waste my time and it’s better for debate to know what side you’re debating before.

-Evidence must have the author’s last name (or institution if last name not available) and last 2 digits of the year i.e. “Wang 18.” If you don’t have this, then I do not consider it valid evidence under NSDA rules and debate in general.This means in rebuttal you need to cite the author’s year of publication and at least the author’s last name or institution if last name is not available.

-Evidence matters a lot to me.You don’t need evidence to make an argumentbut 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.

-Few pieces of good evidence> lots of bad evidence. Smart analytics > blippy, garbage evidence. Decent evidence > most analytics.

-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.

TLDR for my Paradigm:

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism good.Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me 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.

I'm a fan of the arg that teams that only selectively disclose when they're threatened with disclosure theory should be punished still. If they only disclose once or specifically to you, you can still read disclosure if you read the right interp.

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). Make sure to implicate your argument.

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 2020 and it's not that hard.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 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 rebuttalmustrespond 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.

Please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred.

E.Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine.NSDA rules for these arguments are not a valid response in itself, but you can make it a standard. 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 arguments. Just because you have a card doesn't mean there's a warrant as well.

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. Blippy extensions are 100% if the argument is conceded. If they concede an entire contention for example, you can spend 8-10 seconds on it max. If they only respond to the link or the impacts, just spend more time on that and quickly extend the conceded portions. Just make sure to do implications and weighing with the conceded args.

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 pointbecause calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them.

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 when you clearly don't need to.

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.

Theory:

-I love progressive arguments andDO NOTbelieve that they are ruining this activity. If anything, I think there raising the rigor of this game. As I state below somewhere, I love theory and read them on anything. You can read it as a way to win. Just don't be a massive prick about it if you read it as a way to win against novices. If you win and be courteous about it, I will give you what you deserve but if you're a prick, I'll deduct speaks but it won't affect my decision.

-I am extremely receptive to theory. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so if you do so graciously.

-I probably prefer shell format for theory since unlike policy, PF doesn't have the speech times to fully develop paragraph theory args so this usually causes a skew and leads to the actual theory debate happening in the final 20% of the round.

-Other than that, I will buy theory on almost anything i.e. condo bad, PICs bad, must read advocacy text, but I am also open to listening to the opposite side. You also need to make the arguments for voter weighing i.e. fairness and education.

-Make sure you do strength of link weighing and weigh between standards and voters. Otherwise, theory just becomes a jumbled mess and if I'm not feeling like attempting to resolve the theory debate, I may just default to substance and vote there. I'll usually always try to resolve the theory debate first, but if you make args for epistemic modesty on theory/substance and theory is muddled, I'll probably just take that route to make my decision.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's going to be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded, but may be useful to talk about them in an overview to frame the round.

-I believe that theory is aquestion of competing interpretationsmeaning that in-round abuse doesn’t matter but instead is a question of what norm you are promoting. However, this is just my belief but I can be persuaded by in-round abuse, etc.

- If you go for reasonability, you need to establish and warrant a brightline. Going for reasonability is probably an uphill battle for me, but it's possible to win still and probably easier to win on certain friv shells i.e. must spec status, etc.

Defaults for T and Theory:

-Iwill notdefault that fairness and education are voters or the implication of theory. If you forget to read voters or an implication to the shell, it sucks to be you. Fairness and education are probably voters though but again I'm tab on these issues.

-Competing interps, No RVIs are my standard defaults. These are not hard defaults by any means and only apply if nobody makes a single argument. You can easily convince me of an RVI especially if theory comes out in 2nd rebuttal or 1st rebuttal but you need to make the correct arguments.For both T and theory, I am tab on these issues. Just justify your warrants.

-Also, if you forget to read an implication in the original shell, I guess it also sucks to be you. If you go against someone who forgets to read an implication or voters, just say there's no implication and you can move on. I won't let them read an implication in the next speech.

Topicality/T:

-I also really hate PFers throwing out topicality arguments without reading it as a standard shell format or policy-style. If you want to read T, please again read it as a shell format if you don't know how to read it policy-style and make sure to include a TVA.In PF I probably highly prefer shell format since there aren't as many speeches to develop the shell and blippy policy-style leads to the debate happening at the end of the round basically.You need standards/net benefits.Answer why is being non-T bad?Is there some ground, limits arg that you can make? Hell yes, there is. However, you need to prove that. Same defaults as above apply. I am more persuaded by limits>ground. Impacts to fairness and education are fine. If you read other voters, just justify them.

-Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics.

TLDR: If you make topicality arguments against affirmatives without warranting why being non-T or questionably non-T is bad, I probably won't evaluate it. Also, if you read T, you need a definition and interp.

-RVIs:

-I am completely open to this debate. I believe that you could get a RVI or that you don't get a RVI. It all depends on how the debating goes.

-For teams responding to theory in the first summary: Proving a RVI here should be incredibly easy. Think please. This means that teams reading theory in 2nd rebuttal should be sure as hell that it's necessary and that they can debate the RVI layer well.

-I default to no RVI so if you want a RVI make sure you read it.

-If you read a shell, make sure you include the RVI debate in the paradigm issues section. Otherwise, you're going to be making RVI args kind of late into the debate and depending on how late they come up for the first time, it might be too late so it's better to be safe than sorry.

K's:

-I am not really well-read in critical literature so please refrain from running extremely complex Kritiks in front of me. Also, please actually understand your kritiks instead of pulling them from a random backfile that you found on the internet.

-I understand the basic stuff (security, colonialism, Foucault, cap, de-dev etc.). If you read a K, I high prefer a link specific to the AC. I don't want K's critiquing the resolution in general that you can read every single round. Those debates are stale and boring.

-K AFFs are also cool by me but they need to do something. Otherwise, I'm just gonna vote neg on presumption and I think we can all finish the round early. I wrote multiple K-AFFs throughout my career but just usually never broke them. If you want to read a K AFF in front of me, that's cool.

-K's that I Love: Cap and De-Dev. If you can run either one of these well and win, your speaks are gonna be good. Cap is probably good in real-life, but this is debate and I read cap occasionally and cut a bunch of cards for cap Ks so I understand both Cap and De-Dev pretty well. For De-Dev make sure you have a uniqueness/brink card.

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (duh)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

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.

trigger warning stuff: if your arguments contain mentions of suicide, please warn me prior to the start of round

overview: I debated high school policy for 2 years in West Texas which was primarily traditional debate and I am in my second year of debate for UH. Debate for me personally is mostly about the educational and self-discovery aspects but I think you can make of it whatever you want, whether that be a game or a home. I am fine with most arguments, and think that by the end you should have impacted out your arguments and give me reasons that they outweigh or should be voted over your opponents

speed: I am fine with speed, but you should slow down on your tags and analysis by a lot. I will also go ahead and put here that I am not super great at catching really fast technical debate so bullet-pointing things for me and making it more clear when your moving onto an argument you want me to flow separately would also help.

T: In my experience T vs policy affs tend to mostly be a wash. If your running T their should be a clear violation and a specification of how the aff explodes limits or makes you lose core topic ground.

FW: I will reiterate here that I am not super great at catching technical debate. To win framework you should prove that you didn't have enough ground to debate properly and that some topical version of the aff should solve. I still haven't judged a lot of these debates and mostly only debated framework so my opinion here is subject to change

DAs: Nothing specific here, you just have to win all parts of the DA and prove why it turns or outweighs case.

CPs: I don't debate these often enough to be familiar with most of the different types, so you should either keep things simple or just carefully explain how the CP works and how it solves.

Ks: Familiar with these for the most part, just explain your literature in a way that someone with no prior experience could understand.

K Affs/Planless Affs: I am fine with these, they just need to have some relation to the topic, even if said relation is how the topic is bad. Otherwise I am more likely to lean neg on framework.

other stuff:

I am not comfortable with death good as an argument so I will not vote on it. Obviously messed up arguments will also warrant an auto-lose from me.

tech > truth, except on stuff that is incredibly suspect or just flat out lies.

policy affs that a spread bunch of meaningless and under-highlighted cards to spread 8 extinction scenarios make me very sad.

T-Substantial must be x percentage is a bad argument unless you have a topic-specific and warranted card, which you probably dont.

My email is abrooks7704@gmail.com, please add me to the chain.

trigger warning stuff: if your arguments contain mentions of suicide, please warn me prior to the start of round

overview: I debated high school policy for 2 years in West Texas which was primarily traditional debate and I am in my second year of debate for UH. Debate for me personally is mostly about the educational and self-discovery aspects but I think you can make of it whatever you want, whether that be a game or a home. I am fine with most arguments, and think that by the end you should have impacted out your arguments and give me reasons that they outweigh or should be voted over your opponents

speed: I am fine with speed, but you should slow down on your tags and analysis by a lot. I will also go ahead and put here that I am not super great at catching really fast technical debate so bullet-pointing things for me and making it more clear when your moving onto an argument you want me to flow separately would also help.

T: In my experience T vs policy affs tend to mostly be a wash. If your running T their should be a clear violation and a specification of how the aff explodes limits or makes you lose core topic ground.

FW: I will reiterate here that I am not super great at catching technical debate. To win framework you should prove that you didn't have enough ground to debate properly and that some topical version of the aff should solve. I still haven't judged a lot of these debates and mostly only debated framework so my opinion here is subject to change

DAs: Nothing specific here, you just have to win all parts of the DA and prove why it turns or outweighs case.

CPs: I don't debate these often enough to be familiar with most of the different types, so you should either keep things simple or just carefully explain how the CP works and how it solves.

Ks: Familiar with these for the most part, just explain your literature in a way that someone with no prior experience could understand.

K Affs/Planless Affs: I am fine with these, they just need to have some relation to the topic, even if said relation is how the topic is bad. Otherwise I am more likely to lean neg on framework.

other stuff:

I am not comfortable with death good as an argument so I will not vote on it. Obviously messed up arguments will also warrant an auto-lose from me.

tech > truth, except on stuff that is incredibly suspect or just flat out lies.

policy affs that a spread bunch of meaningless and under-highlighted cards to spread 8 extinction scenarios make me very sad.

T-Substantial must be x percentage is a bad argument unless you have a topic-specific and warranted card, which you probably dont.

My email is abrooks7704@gmail.com, please add me to the chain.

trigger warning stuff: if your arguments contain mentions of suicide, please warn me prior to the start of round

overview: I debated high school policy for 2 years in West Texas which was primarily traditional debate and I am in my second year of debate for UH. Debate for me personally is mostly about the educational and self-discovery aspects but I think you can make of it whatever you want, whether that be a game or a home. I am fine with most arguments, and think that by the end you should have impacted out your arguments and give me reasons that they outweigh or should be voted over your opponents

speed: I am fine with speed, but you should slow down on your tags and analysis by a lot. I will also go ahead and put here that I am not super great at catching really fast technical debate so bullet-pointing things for me and making it more clear when your moving onto an argument you want me to flow separately would also help.

T: In my experience T vs policy affs tend to mostly be a wash. If your running T their should be a clear violation and a specification of how the aff explodes limits or makes you lose core topic ground.

FW: I will reiterate here that I am not super great at catching technical debate. To win framework you should prove that you didn't have enough ground to debate properly and that some topical version of the aff should solve. I still haven't judged a lot of these debates and mostly only debated framework so my opinion here is subject to change

DAs: Nothing specific here, you just have to win all parts of the DA and prove why it turns or outweighs case.

CPs: I don't debate these often enough to be familiar with most of the different types, so you should either keep things simple or just carefully explain how the CP works and how it solves.

Ks: Familiar with these for the most part, just explain your literature in a way that someone with no prior experience could understand.

K Affs/Planless Affs: I am fine with these, they just need to have some relation to the topic, even if said relation is how the topic is bad. Otherwise I am more likely to lean neg on framework.

other stuff:

I am not comfortable with death good as an argument so I will not vote on it. Obviously messed up arguments will also warrant an auto-lose from me.

tech > truth, except on stuff that is incredibly suspect or just flat out lies.

policy affs that a spread bunch of meaningless and under-highlighted cards to spread 8 extinction scenarios make me very sad.

T-Substantial must be x percentage is a bad argument unless you have a topic-specific and warranted card, which you probably dont.

My email is abrooks7704@gmail.com, please add me to the chain.

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!