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, 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.

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 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. I also think I am required to disclose that i have three felony convictions for tax evasion. oop! (jk esp if you’re a cop looking at this😅)

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 I'm cycling intensely on my Peloton in the back of the room, please don't disturb me.

- 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. 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, 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.

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

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.

谢谢!

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

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.

be creative with your route to the ballot and you'll be rewarded!

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 too hard; i'll know.

Are you ok with speed?

i guess? lean towards no. 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! it's debate, not awards collecting

Sam Loh Paradigm

Sam Loh (sjloh73@gmail.com) / Updated for Berkeley

*UPDATE 2/13: Minor edits for clarity.

_____________________________________________________

August 2016 - June 2018: Plano West Debate

August 2018 - June 2019: Hebron High School assistant PF Coach

June 2019 - Present: Colleyville Heritage assistant PF Coach

______________________________________________________

o STRIKES/PREFS.

-I don't like to see the following six things in round. I would prefer if you struck me if you want to do the following:

#1. Your "evidence paraphrasing" becomes evidence powertagging or misrepresentation.

#2. Extend only author names and not actual warrants

#3. You enjoy going for tricks debates

#4. Your strategy involves spreading an unreasonable number of off case positions and conditionally kicking all of them to collapse on the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to

#5. Going beyond ~2 layers up is a possible round strategy

#6. Planning to read "30's speaks theory" (This one matters less but I'm not giving you auto 30's and I think it's a waste of time in round)

-The next two are just miscellaneous preferences. I wouldn't say you have to strike me but just a heads up

#7. I'm generally receptive to the more common progressive args in PF (disclosure/paraphrase theory, condo bad, nibs bad, cap k, security k, etc.) not such much the high theory. For those of you who like running these in PF, interpret that how you will.

#7.5. Since the start of the season it sounds like the word/phrase K's are on the rise where a debater should lose the round because they said something offensive. If you're going to turn it into a voting issue (where it's not just you point out it's bad, the opponents apologize because they didn't know and we move on), you need to structure the K and have it fully fleshed out. I'm not compelled to just vote on short blips that "oh saying x is bad and they should lose". If it's a serious offense to you/your identity, I would think you would want to spend the time developing the full argument to maximize round discourse as to why said action is bad. Exceptions may be made depending on the severity of the offense but I don't expect that to happen most of the time.

#8. I would significantly prefer that you go line by line in the backhalf. If debating big picture is your thing and you can do it well by all means go for it, I'll evaluate how you debate.

o Some of my general views:

Fundamentally, I think my job as a judge in the debate space is as an educator. If I am placed to judge your round, my job is to evaluate what you present to me and give you constructive feedback on what I think you can do better as a debater. While I may not be as prepped on the topic or as good of a debater as you, I make my best effort to understand and know as much of what you present to me I can.

I also think that if I am allowed to make a judgement on what you present to me, reciprocally, you as the debaters have the right to question the decisions that I make. That being said I am ok with you postrounding/3 AR'ing/any other terms that are used. I would even encourage you to if I say something that doesn't make sense. I think the community has the best opportunity to improve as a whole when we have opportunities to learn from each other. I am open to any questions or criticisms that you have of my decision making but just because the round is over, that does not mean you are allowed to make violent or oppressive arguments. If you feel the need to personally attack my decision making by all means feel free but let's stay away from marginalizing and stereotyping general groups of individuals.

*Any violent or oppressive arguments will be an instant loss and a tab report.

However, I want to make a distinction so there's no confusion - I view the role of the ballot as a policy maker. In terms of having a resolution, I must have a compelling reason to change the status quo. My Default framing is util and absent offense in the round I will presume neg.

o What do I look for in round?:

Below I've listed some non-negotiables. You should do these things if you want to win my ballot. Most of these preferences exist because I feel that they ensure both the fairness and education of the activity

1) I am tab/tech>truth/games/offense defense, etc. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information

2) The second rebuttal must respond to at least turns. I do not know how PF got to be this way when the other forms of debate (LD,CX) require every speech to respond to the prior. If the intent of the rebuttal is to respond to opponent offense, you need to cover turns.

3) The summary and final focus must be mirrored/parallel. Any offense you want me to vote off must be in both speeches.

4) Any extension in round must have a warrant. I will always prefer something that is warranted over something not. Cards matter too but a warrant more so for me.

5) Case extensions in summary must include the full argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact). With a three minute summary, my expectations are that you make actual fleshed out arguments, not blips. Final just needs warrant impact. I require comparatively less work on completely dropped arguments.

6) Given the scope of pf I am okay with poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. as impact extensions. I would prefer if you implicated recession, war, etc. but worst comes worst, I will look at those as impact extensions. However, you need to be consistent in what you tell me is your impact. For example: if you tell me in case and in summary that x implication of recession is your impact, then I expect you to make that same extension in final focus. I am not receptive to debaters becoming lazy at the end of the round and not extending through the same impact that they have read the entire round.

7) Defense needs to be in summary (even if you're first). Arguments should be carried throughout backhalf speeches to hold weight.

8) The second final focus may not introduce new arguments and generally from second summary onward, neither team is allowed to introduce new evidence (exception is second summary may use new evidence to respond to new evidence from first summary). At the end of the round, teams should be collapsing down to the arguments that have been made.

o What are my personal views on how debate functions?:

1) Debate is debate not interp. You are evaluated based on the arguments you are capable of making, not based off how good of a presenter you are. Speaks will be given accordingly

2) I think it is unfair for a team to read their own responses to kick an argument that the other team has straight turned. Conceding a double turn or a delink/nonu the opponents have read is fine although that should be done in the speech right after

3) You should be weighing and collapsing down to specific issues in the backhalf of the round. If both teams have offense but neither weighs, I will intervene. This is not a no offense scenario - both teams are generating offense, I just don't know whose is more important. This begs intervention.

My default weighing preferences are strength of link > subsuming mechanisms > comparative weighing

If I get into a scenario where I have a morality/phil type impact v. a consequentialist impact and there is a lack of clarity on the weighing and framing level, I will flip a coin. Heads is aff.

3.5) If you want to avoid intervention you need to implicate what your arguments mean/do in the context of the round. Simply spewing arguments at me and assuming that I will know what to do with it or can read your mind on how you want it to function is asking for me to intervene. If you just leave arguments floating out there, I will try my best to sort out their implication but if you are not happy with the result that is on you.

4) Speed: I think I've judged a fair but not absurd amount of circuit debate. I will clear if I cannot follow. I need a speech doc if you are spreading anything that is not tagged and especially if it is paraphrased. Also please note that I'm not a person who can sit down anytime anywhere and flow at max speed - I might need to clear to slow it down a notch if it's the first round of the day.

o Progressive Arguments

I am completely fine with these but a few rules/notes

1) Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it

2) TLDR; I'm probably not a good K judge. I never did LD/CX but I'll vote on them. Just please explain it well. Please. Especially if you're going to run something weird

3) If it is blatantly obvious you are hitting relatively new debaters, extending progressive args will net you a low point win with 25's. Let these people learn how debate functions first before you blast them with all the uplayer stuff

4) Theory/T Defaults: Competing interps, Drop the debater, No RVI, T before Theory

5) Identification Arguments: Do not read one if you do not identify with said group or have a reason for reading it. If you are called out for commodification and cannot defend your position, it's loss with minimum speaker points. This includes Anti-blackness, Queer, Small school and low income debater positions, you get the idea

o Speaks

My average last year was a mid 28, this year it's a high 27 (For reference since it's probably more accurate for nat circ, I averaged a low-mid 28 at Glenbrooks. I'm too lazy to do the math for my overall average right now). My biggest factor for speaks is how well you handle arguments in round. Speaks go up for good strategy and argumentation, down for the opposite.

Bonus speaks: NDCA wiki disclosure, having a PF circuit debater wiki, email chaining docs for speeches beyond constructive, cutting cross short when appropriate. (If you've put stuff on either wiki remind me in case I forget to check)

Speaks penalties: Being unorganized, not clearing after clear is called, being rude to opponents (especially minorities)

o Questions: There's a decent chance I missed something while trying to scale down the size my paradigm so if something's missing or unclear feel free to ask

o Update (11/1) just because teams have been asking: Sorry, I don't plan on shaking hands at the end of the round during this time of year especially since there's been pretty cold weather (at least in Texas). Just saves us that awkward exchange at the end of the round

William Mason Paradigm

I am a 15+ 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.

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

PF

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.

CX

E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com

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 are obv needed.

Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed

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.

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.

Note though that as I have limited policy experience, talking too fast or being unclear has a greater risk of me not flowing anything since I’m not versed in topic lit.

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 policy experience, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any topic literature.

Open CX is okay with me.

Tech > Truth most of the time

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

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 or ask me before the round if you additional questions.

Email: dwang22@utexas.edu

Lay debate is not debate (just my thoughts)

+0.2 speaker points every time you make a Twice/Blackpink/Bol4/Taeyeon song reference in speech. (+0.6 max for each speaker)

If you disclose on the NDCA PF wiki, + 0.5 points to both debaters.

PF Paradigm:

UPDATE (STRAKE RR): Haven't judged this year -- still somewhat follow debate so speed should not be an issue but haven't read topic lit so explain it well. For the 3 minute summary, still collapse but depth > breadth -- I am going to be less lenient on blippy extensions if arguments are contested. Blippy extensions are still fine if the argument is entirely conceded. Do more weighing. The 3 minute summary also means I am probably not buying that PF speech times are not long enough for theory debates.

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. Then, you would only need to extend defense that was contested by the 2nd rebuttal.

-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.

-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 if you can.

-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.

-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 or institution if last name isn not available.

-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.

--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, 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 2019 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.

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

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.

Gabriel Williams Paradigm

8 rounds

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.

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

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.