Potomac Debate October ESMS Debate Tournament

2018 — Thomas S Wootton High School, MD/US

Savon Ayodeji Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Zoe Cantor Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sreejato Chatterjee Paradigm

If you're reading this, then good for you. You're clearly smart and know what you're doing.wink

Background:

I have about a year and a half of PF Debate experience at Potomac, so I'm not the most experienced debater in the world, but I know a couple of things.

Speed:

Speed is ok, as long as you don't spread and sacrifice clarity in general(Spreading will most likely result in docked speaks or even an auto drop). Try to use up all of your time in speech though. I'm fine if there are 5-10 seconds left, but I get really annoyed when debaters have 30 seconds or more left and they don't use it.

Evidence:

Cards shouldn't just be thrown around. They need to have links and analysis. Include author and year. I'll only call for a card if you bring it up numerous times throughout the debate and collapse on it or I find it very sketchyundecided

Argumentation:

I'm a tech over truth judge. I will buy arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted and linked well.

Remember to WEIGH!!! Impact arguments and give me reasons to vote for you. I don't want to have to do the thinking myself! I'm a bad decision makerfrown

Try to signpost. I can often get lost so please let me know where you are.

Stick to the topic.

Anything collapsed in Summary should be brought up in Final Focus.

If an argument is dropped, it is the opponent's job to point that out. Otherwise, it won't consider it in my RFD.

Arguments brought up once and weighed way later in the round won't be evaluated in my final decision.

Don't even try running Theory or Kritiks. I barely understand those and you probably don't either.

Speaks:

I don't really have a general range for speaks.

Confidence, charisma and a little seriousness in Crossfire are ok(especially the charisma), but if you are straight up rude(ex. Don't let opponents finish, cut them off, yell), then I'm docking speaks. However, if you trap your opponent and make them concede to your argument in a smart way I'll add +1 speaks.

Try to make the round enjoyable. I've really seen(and judged) some sad debates before. If you make me laugh for the right reasons, I'll give you +0.5-1 speaks depending on the joke. If I laugh because the debate is cancer(and you're probably laughing with me), then don't be surprised by low speaks and harsh feedback.

Remember: Debate is supposed to be fun. Be a good sport and don't ruin the fun for everyone elselaughing

Also, world star rule is in effect. If you don't know, read it here :)https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Hebron&search_last=Daniel

Dheeraj Keshav Paradigm

Experience - PF debater for 2 years, going into 3rd.

Paradigm

Hey bois,

So, you got this weird brown guy as your judge, and you don't know what you're supposed to do to win his ballot. Well...

Real Part

- Philosophy: I try as hard as I can to be tabula rasa. I will not vote off of anything not presented and extended throughout the round. I will only weigh for you if:

- Neither team weighs

- One team weighs, and its really really bad (more on that later)

- Extensions: Make sure you extend correctly. Some clarifications:

- 2nd rebuttal can frontline, but doesn't have to.

- 1st summary has to frontline. They can extend defense/rebuttals, but they don't have to.

- 2nd summary has to frontline, and has to extend defense.

- both FFs have to extend offense/defense. ANYTHING not in FF will not be evaluated, unless both of y'all forget what extensions are. Then, I'll be forced to work for you.

- Please, for the love of god, don't tell me to "extend Walker 16 from case" or "extend our impacts." EVERYTHING you extend in summary/FF should be warranted (ie "extend Walker 16 who tells you that affirming causes widespread inflation and forces the fed to increase interest rates"). I'm far too lazy to remember all of your card names w/o the warrants.

- Weighing: Weigh correctly. Some more clarifications:

- In a perfect world, weighing begins in 1st rebuttal. As you go through the impacts, be like "this impact suck some booty compared to ours for x reasons."

- Weighing should also be warranted. Don't pull that "we outweigh on reversibility" stuff.

- Don't weigh on strength of link/probability unless you're comparing mitigation vs terminal/delinks, or have an actually good weighing mech for strength of link. i won't take into account weighing that's just like "this argument's ridiculous." If it's well warranted, that won't cut it.

- If nowhere else, make SURE you put weighing in FF. Pleaseee. Even if one team has a way better case and defense, if they don't weigh and the other team puts in at least mediocre work on that front, I'll be remiss as i sign my ballot for the other team

- Speed: I'll try to flow, but I'll drop some stuff if you go too fast. If you're around/slower than 200 words/min, I will catch the majority of your args. Above that, I'm not sure. Haven't flowed that fast in a while though. Keep that in mind, if I vote off of arguments and I didn't catch your response because you were too fast or talk like a monkey, that's on you buddy. If you are going to spread, disclose your cases. If you spread w/o disclosure, I'll honestly buy disclosure theory at that point.

- Argumentation: Anything short of like "black people are bad," will not be considered offensive and will be treated as a viable arg. If you somehow go that far, I'll still vote on it if you magically find enough cards to make a supported arg and defend it well (i.e. its not a racist arg but it sounds vaguely racist), but I wouldn't bet on it.

- Evidence: If (and only if) you tell me to call a card, I prob will. If you provide a card, keep in mind I'll skim the whole thing to make sure it agrees with what you say. If it's misconstrued, it's respective arg will be taken out of consideration. If neither side can actually provide cards, that's a big oof.

Also Real Part but Wack

- Attitude: Make things funny/light. I prefer when debates have a lot of jokes/roasts in them, even if they're bad.

- CF: Some people talk about being "rude" vs aggressive in cross. I realllly don't get that. I honestly will get if you cut someone off because they're being stupid or rambling, and I don't think any CF isn't viable unless y'all literally start screaming or personally attack them for like who they are. But like roasting their flowing skills if they dropped something you brought up is totally legit and def funny. That will be reflected in your speaks.

- Worldstar: Worldstar rules apply (hehe) check 'em out here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=hebron&search_last=daniel. Basically, if your partner hits the dab with a fire roast, scream "WORLDSTAR" and make me laugh. Don't abuse it. There aren't any specific +/- rules for speaks, but use it well and your speaks will get boosted. Overuse it and your speaks'll get hit. Hard. Ish. Also, if you're in CF, don't scream worldstar. Please, that's just cringy.

- Cursing: If you're really feeling it, go for it. I'm down. Let 'em have it. Don't abuse it. Again, overuse/personal attacks are muy estupido.

- Wack args: Yeet. I'm down for K's (replace CPs w/ Alts), and Theory. Run them properly, though, or else it's just a bootleg contention. However, miss me with them Counterplans.

Other things

- If there's anything I didn't cover, ask me before/after round.


Now you know how to help yourself win over the biggy brown boi who has just presented himself into your room. Have a nice day.

Jennifer Lin Paradigm

I currently debate on the national circuit for PF (HS).

Make sure to have cohesive summaries and final focuses. I won't drop you if they aren't but its a lot better when you go for the same args as your partners. Offense in ff should be in summary.

If you want me to vote for you, do a lot of comparative weighing and tell me why your impacts are more important or why your links are more sound.

I'm generally tech>truth, but that doesn't mean you can make extreme arguments that just don't make sense. I will essentially vote off of anything as long as it isn't offensive or absurd.

I don't flow cross. If you want me to vote on it, say it in a speech.

Speaks:

I'll give you a 30 in speaks if it's almost flawless. This includes your argumentation, speaking, and strategy.

* I'll bump your speaks if you get me taro milk tea (w/bubbles). Also just food in general :)

Ishanvi Malayanil Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lawrence Tang Paradigm

"Sonic speed is fine, if I cant understand you I'll yell out clear, if you keep trying to be lightning mcqueen after that - speaks :('
If you spin around every time you say the word “turn” I will be happy and bump your speaks.
I don't like probability weighing (it's fake)
I like brownies and poki.

Peter Zhang Paradigm

For PF:

- I'm a 100% flow judge. I'll only intervene against bigotry.

- Speed is fine (I do LD); unclear spreading is not.

- Love weighing and evidence comparison.

- Second Rebuttal doesn't have to frontline. Defense is sticky.

Speaks / Misc:

- I try to average 28 for a given tournament pool.

- I love impact turns. "Warming good" and "death good" will get +1 speaks.

- Jokes and roasts are good. I'll grant speaks depending on how funny you are.

- If you 20-point a contention, I'll award you 30 speaks and (probability) an auto-win.