PF preferences:

1. I do not need to shake your hands, nothing personal.

2. No spreading. I will flow the round. If I can't understand or miss something, I can't evaluate it.

3. Please keep crossfires civil.

4. Make all of your link stories clear and show how they lead to your impacts. If the link chain doesn't make logical sense, I won't evaluate the impact. Logical arguments will carry more weight.

5. I won't evaluate arguments that are dropped. You don't need to respond to a dropped argument or extend any responses on this.

6. It shouldn't take you more than a minute to find a card. If I call for a card I want to see the the actual article, not a PDF.

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it is.

If creating an email chain - please include me: debate.foster @ gmail.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with COVID.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round.

LD Paradigm:

Overview:
I am a lay judge. My daughter does policy so I know some of the jargon, but make sure to explain EVERYTHING. Please do not spread- at most fast conversational speed- otherwise I cannot flow and will miss your arguments. I will shout "clear" if I can't understand you twice and then stop flowing.

Specifics:

Aff- Just know your aff and be able to explain the ins and outs. If I am confused about your solvency mechanism then it will make it very hard to vote aff. If you are running a nontraditional affirmative, I am not the best judge for you. I took one philosophy class back in college and barely remember most of the theory. If you want, take your chances, but I recommend striking me.

Neg-

T- I'm probably not the best judge for this unless it is clearly outside of the resolution (ex. topic is let's go eat nuggets; aff says salad is wonderful--- while related, I know what the difference is). If it is not something you would expect an average citizen to understand be sure to clearly explain the violation. Also explain the debate jargon.

K- Again, I am not the best judge for this because I will get easily confused by the jargon.

DA- I'm probably best for this. Make sure you explain your link story and do impact calc

CP- Explain everything. Will probably not vote on theory, but who knows I might.

Speaker Points:
I'm not really sure how to give these out. Things that will up your speaks: Being slow (not spreading), clear, and making good arguments that I can understand (minimal debate jargon). Things that will kill your speaks: Spreading, using only debate jargon, being rude to your opponents.

for IE’s I wish to be entertained.

Hello, I am a parent of an LD debater. I have three years of experience judging both circuit and traditional styles of debates (more so traditional). I have a few basic preferences:

Speed/Speaks: Although I understand most debate issues, I still need you to go slow. I don't really care if you sound nice or go super slow, but try to avoid spreading. If you talk faster than conversational, that is okay. Do not use a bunch of heavy jargon, because even though I can probably understand how arguments break down and interact, saying uniqueness overwhelms the link without an explanation will lose me. In terms of speaks, I think I am similar to most LD judges on the circuit. This is how I break that down:

28.3-28.7-average

28.8-29.0-good (probably break)

29.1-29.3-great (definitely break, maybe bid)

29.4+: will be competitive to win tournament

LARP: This is the debate I am most familiar with. DA's, CP's and all of that is fine with me. Just don't use super complicated jargon, but just explain what things mean. For example, instead of saying perm do both, say perm the CP and plan are not mutually exclusive, so the aff can defend doing both. Stuff like that.

T/Theory: Fine I guess. I'm okay with judging it, but once again, don't use jargon. Just explain T like you would to any parent judge.

Phil: This is fine. I require more explanation than most judges for a lot of phil arguments, but I will probably be willing to vote on them, although I tend to lean towards util and other consequentialist frameworks.

K: Big time no. I don't understand most of them, and I will not vote on them. By that same logic, the aff must be topical and defend a policy action within the resolution. Spec is fine, but just defend government action.

Note: Disclosure is good. Disclose on the wiki. If someone reads disclosure theory and there is a real violation, I will probably be willing to vote on it. That being said, new affs not being disclosed are fine, and I don't really care about Open Source. I will also not be disclosing the decision in the round, so you can probably ask me, but I will say I won't disclose. That being said, debate is a game. Have fun, be entertaining if you can, and be respectful so everyone is included :)

Lay Judge:
Kind of Sketchy on Jargon so make sure you explain what you're saying. 

Also don't spread.

I don't like theory and i'm probably ok substance Kritiks but don't run reps/rhetoric Ks on me. 

Thanks. 

**UPDATED FOR TOC**

Assistant Coach for Fairmont Preparatory Academy

Education:

Bachelor of Arts in Political Science & Bachelor of Arts in Speech Communications from the University of La Verne '18

Debate Experience:

University of La Verne 2014 Performance Scholarship Recipient for Speech & Debate

Competitive collegiate British Parliamentary style debater 2014 - 2018

Attended over 25 tournaments nationally & internationally: The Oxford IV 2017, WUDC Mexico 2018, CMUDE Chile 2018, USUDC Anchorage 2015, USUDC Atlanta 2016, USUDC Stanford 2018, Pan-AmericanUDC Atlanta 2018, etc.

Titles: 2017 U.S. National Debate Championship Winner (BP Debate), Spanish World's Debate Championship 2018 Finalist (CMUDE Chile 2018)

Coaching Experience:

Bonita High School, Fairmont Preparatory Academy, University of La Verne (Spanish BP)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PF Paradigm 2018-2019 Season:

**UPDATED FOR TOC**

"Prep time for the requesting team will not start until evidence has been handed over to the debater requesting said cards. Teams may prep during this evidence request time, this should encourage teams to have their evidence ready and available to present immediately. Judges should discourage teams from attempting to “game the system” if evidence requests become overly burdensome or create excessive delays in the debate." - TOC rules. [KNOW THE RULES KIDDOS]

EXPLAIN UNIQUENESS. If you can't explain/link out to why something actually changes on the AFF, it's going to put you at a huge disadvantage.

CARDS. CARDS. CARDS. I know this topic isn't the crowd favorite, but this is TOC, you *especially* need to have evidence for what you run. Don't make assertions or say "it just logically makes sense" when someone asks where your evidence is in round. Have a card or you don't get access to your impact.

• I'm a flow judge at heart. I do not like spreading, if you spread: it won't win you any favor in the round and it is better for you to slow down and explain your contentions at a normal pace. Don't read theory.
• If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary; everything said in final focus should have at least been mentioned in summary. Please know the difference between a team dropping a point/not engaging with a contention and a team whose response you simply did not like. Disliking a team's response to your case does not equate dropping or not refuting it.
• I don't flow crossfire but I DO listen and it can factor into my decision sometimes. However: anything super important coming out of crossfire that you want me to flow should be in one of your speeches.
• Productive crossfire: if you spend 3 minutes talking over one another/constantly interrupting/being unnecessarily rude, etc: it's a waste of time for you and will make me annoyed. I lower speaker points for this.
• I enjoy off time roadmaps so I know where you are at on the flow.

• What I want to see: flushed out link chains & arguments that have realistic impacts. I vote for teams that are closest to the truth. Truth > Tech in most circumstances. Exaggerations and half-truths will be factored into my decisions; I defer to the teams with the most realistic and honest impact when there is tie.
• Properly complete/extend your links in summary and final focus

• Weighing mechanisms :) Explain why I should defer to your side: cost benefit analysis, scope, magnitude, probability, etc. I am in huge favor of clearly explained impacts. Pre-empt this in summary, be sure to do this in final focus.
• Comparatively weigh the round. Engage with the other side and their impacts and explain why I still should defer to your side.

• What I do not want to see: 1) abuse or misuse your evidence: I will pull cards if I need to. 2) spreading 3) Unproductive crossfire: allow the other side to speak, be respectful, only interrupt if absolutely necessary. Speaker points will reflect how you treat others in round. 4) Theory. In my opinion, this should only be run if the other side is truly being abusive and you HAVE to thoroughly explain it. 5) Disrespectful Post-Rounding: If you have a question, cool. I am happy to explain my thinking calculus. But do not interrupt me while I am giving an RFD or tell me I'm wrong. You're allowed to disagree, but do so respectfully. :)

ALSO: I have a very serious face when I judge, it is not that I hate you or what you are saying: it is just my face :) If y'all have any questions about anything, feel free to ask before the round!

Lastly: I know it's TOC and y'all have a lot on the line, but don't forget to breathe & enjoy the ride. I know it's corny and cliché, but don't forget to have fun.

PF Paradigm 2020-21 Season:

eDebate - Year of the COVID

- I consider myself tech>truth but I have been approaching a closer equilibrium between the two lately due to how poor evidence ethics have been become.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory and/or pre-fiat debates in PF. I don't let my teams disclose on the wiki and will not travel them if they do. Take that as you will for disclosure theory. I will be especially incredulous of your theory argument if I discover your application of theory is principally inconsistent. For example, you are running disclosure or paraphrasing theory against one team for violating but not another team who violated (assuming both judges would have equally been receptive.) There may be other extenuating circumstances that explain the discrepancy in application but they need to be addressed. Lastly, if you look back at the last 22 rounds or so I've judged with theory or a pre-fiat argument as the primary voter I've probably only voted for the team who introduced said argument in the round 6 of 22 rounds. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock specific rounds but in principle remain tabula rasa.

Little Things

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time.
• If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
• DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much. Will especially hit your speaks.
• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Smh y'all.
• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear.
• My favorite question in cx is: Why?
• My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."
• Don't read "framework" at the top of case unless it's carded. Rarely is it warranted or carded. It's almost always asserted. If you have a card and have an independent warrant go for it. Otherwise don't waste our time in the speech when we know the debate will end with CBA. You can run overviews and weighing but that's different than framework as some approach it. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.
• Don't read definitions if the judge is familiar with the topic. Waste of time.
• I understand the desire to ask for quantifications or quantitative brightlines. It can be helpful in some debates. However, if you ask for a specific quantification then the burden on you in turn is to provide quantifications for your argument as well. I can't tell you how many times I see teams ask others to quantify their impacts and little if none of their own meet that same standard.
• If you run a percentage increase in an impact or effect you better have the original baseline or original percent if asked. Saying something increases by 845% is misleading without context. If my tea drinking increased by 200% per day and the original amount was 2 oz that isn't significant in context.
• Offtime road maps fine
• Pre-flowing in general should be done before the round. Especially if it's second flight. Like what are y'all doing outside the room lmao. Print out copies or something. Easy.
• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [lol in covid times this is prophetic]
• To see my discussions and extended preferences please check out r/debate on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/GabeRusk/submitted/

Gabe Rusk

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union

Coaching Experience: 10+ years of coaching, instructor at 12+ debate camps, debate camp director, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, Director of Debate at Fairmont 2018-Current, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, Capitol 2016-2018, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Law & Religion - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment - Majored in Religion and Philosophy at DU '14. Other research areas of familiarity include Buddhism, comparative religion, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, copyright law, & SCOTUS history.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Ahhhhh! You made it this far. Plus .1 speaker points if your pet Zoom bombs, you make an organic reference to the Last Airbender in the round, or drink some permutation of tea in the round.

Please add me to email chain: Email: schirjeev@gmail.com

Framework: Tend to stay away from framework debates. I care about the actual arguments that you present. If disagreement continues explain why you also apply to their framework. If Framework is very complicated, explain it in a less complicated manner. If I’m not able to understand what you are trying to convey, chances are I won’t vote for you.

K Debaters: I am fine with Kritiks as long as they are topical to the resolution. Make sure to be very clear on your links and explain as to why it should be extended. If I am not clear on how you solve for your K, I will drop it.

Theory Debates: I don’t prefer theory debates. If you’re reading high theory, make sure to explain it as low theory so I can understand properly.

Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow.

I am a parent judge. I have no experience on the topic, so please don't spread and tell me why to vote for you. Keep your own time.

No spreading.

Counter plans allowed if the tournament allows.