Strake Jesuit Freshman Round Robin

2019 — Houston, TX/US

Zain Ashraf Paradigm

8 rounds

Strake Jesuit '21

To steal a quote from my friend Dhruva Rangan, "I debated for three years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts."

TL,DR - If the most tech judge of all time is a 10, i'm probably a 7.5. "I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact." - Andy Stubbs. You can read whatever you want.

Speed: I flow on paper and don't write that fast. if you spread, i can't promise you i'll be able to flow everything, but i can handle "PF fast" fine.

Frontlining: Everything you want frontlined in the round must be frontlined the speech after it is read. For example, you can't make new frontlines to a turn or terminal defense in 2nd summary, it needs to be in 2nd rebuttal.

Extensions: Defense needs to be extended and implicated in first summary, be clear and carry a consistent narrative throughout the round.

Weighing: If you say "we outweigh on scope bc we effect x amount of people" that's not weighing. Weighing needs to be comparative. New weighing is fine in every speech but 2nd final. Also, I'm a big fan of metaweighing because it's hard and very strategic, so do that if you can.

Just because a turn is conceded, doesn't mean you win. Weigh your turns in the back-half.


Theory: In general, im not a fan of progressive debate and will be mad if you read theory, but you can read whatever you want and I'll value it. Here's my preferences.

Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (new contentions in second rebuttal and stuff like that)

Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory

Ks: These are probably the best kind of progressive argument bc a lot of them are actually important, but I'm stupid and don't know any literature. If you've written a K that you feel is an important thing to read, go for it, but make it very clear to me what your argument is and why you're winning it.

Tricks: i dare u

Speaker Points: I'm going to be as friendly with speaks as possible. To get a 30, be very efficient, weigh consistently, call people out on their screw-ups, and carry an established narrative while being strategic on the line-by-line, or, make a risky strategic decision that pays off.

Miscellaneous:

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic or otherwise abusive. My tolerance for this is really low and I won't hesitate to give you an L20.

Read content warnings for any potentially upsetting arguments and respect your opponent's wishes.

Wear what you want and do what you want during speeches/cross.

Don't be a jerk.

I'm not sure why tag team cross is a thing, but you can do it.

Flex prep is fine.

If the topic isn't a policy topic, I'll presume 1st speaking team. If it is, I'll presume to whatever side the status quo is.

Don't read delinks on your own case.

DO NOT use progressive argumentation against teams who are obviously very inexperienced in it. That's messed up and it'll be very hard to get my ballot if you do this.

Cooper Carlile Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Neo Curry Paradigm

8 rounds

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain/Questions: nacurry@uh.edu

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

Caden Day Paradigm

8 rounds

Strake Jesuit '19|UT Austin '23

Email Chain/Questions: caden.day@utexas.edu

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any argument you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but I really mean you can do whatever you want. In a similar sense, you can wear whatever you feel comfortable wearing and speak from whatever position makes you feel most comfortable.

Arguments that I am mostly comfortable with:

Theory, Topicality Plans, Counter Plans/PICs, Disads, soft-left Kritiks, most framework args.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

Tricks, High Theory and Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, Facebook message me before the round and I can help. Tell me if you have disclosed your cases because I'm not gonna check for you.

Summary/Final Focus

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each). Similarly, if going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech. This means frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend defense in 1st summary.

Joseph Donowho Paradigm

8 rounds

I did PF for 4 years, willing to vote on pretty much anything, but my understanding of Ks is not that great so you're going to need make these arguments very clear if you're running them in front of me. But, as a matter of principle, I'm not a PF purist and I think these arguments are fine to read.

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. I don't need specific card names to be extended, but it never hurts.

Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Trust me, even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner. In practice, I think this means doing clear weighing and then after extending your arguments explaining why they win you the round.

You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.

+.3 speaks for disclosure on the wiki. Just let me know you've disclosed before the round.

For online debate:

I understand the need for calling for evidence, especially in an event where disclosure is not the norm. But the exchange of evidence needs to be efficient. This means you have cut cards or pdfs easily accesible for the evidence you read and should be able to pull it up in a reasonable time. Email chains should be standard and when emailing cases, cards should be included so y'all don't have to call for all the cards in each other's cases.

Joseph Dowdall Paradigm

8 rounds

Strake Jesuit '19

Contact: jhdowdall19[at]mail[dot]strakejesuit[dot]org

Update for the Strake RR: I haven't judged since NDF, but I reread my paradigm and still agree with most of it.

Technicians over truth.

Evaluating the Round

First, framing and weighing: I will attempt to figure out what arguments are the most important based on any framing and weighing read in the round. If there is none, I will default to CBA and wait until the last step to figure out the most important offense.

Second, I will evaluate topicality, theory, kritik or any other pre-fiat arguments. For T and theory I will default to drop the argument. If you do proper weighing, I’m willing to evaluate substance first.

Third, evaluating links/link stories: I will evaluate both sides links to see how strong they are in the context of the round; this will determine to what extent your impact matters.

Fourth, comparing impacts (hopefully your weighing will tell me how I should do this); otherwise I’ll probably have to intervene.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal should Frontline. Turns and defense from first rebuttal not addressed in second rebuttal are conceded.

Rebuttal (especially second rebuttal) should not have long offensive overviews. I won't vote you down for this, but you'll lose speaks and I'll be very receptive to theory against this.

Summary

Don’t go for everything and weigh.

First summary should extend defense on whatever argument second rebuttal goes for.

Extensions need to be a good bit more than “extend this card.”

Final Focus

I will not vote off of any offense that was not in summary.

It is not too late to do some weighing (but I will be less receptive to it than weighing that has been consistently done since rebuttal or summary).

Card Calling

I’ll call for cards when they sound sketchy, when I am told to call for them, or when opposing cards directly contradict each other with no interaction.

Progressive Args

Theory

I prefer theory in shell format, and I am more receptive to it in outrounds and at bid tournaments (in other words don't use theory as a way of excluding people or getting an easy win).

Kritiks

Not super familiar with them but I've had an LDer explain them to me at least two times. I'll try my best.

Disclosure

0.5 extra speaks to any team that discloses their case on the NDCA PF wiki at least 30 minutes before the round.

Another 0.5 speaks to any team that flashes or emails me and their opponents their case and speech docs.

Make sure you tell me if you disclosed, so I can add the the extra speaks.

Misc.

Don't grill me if you didn't watch the round

If your opponents read a non-unique and a turn, the non-unique needs to be explicitly conceded in the next speech for the turn to go away.

If the round has absolutely no offense, I will default to the first speaking team.

Ask questions if you have any.

Ali Jalal Paradigm

8 rounds

Strake Jesuit '20 / Duke '24

Email: asjalal20@mail.strakejesuit.org

- I did PF for four years in the TFA (TX) and on the National Circuit. I won TFA state and qualified for TOC twice.

-tech > truth . Read any arguments you want. I mainly did LARP debate with respectable experience using off-case positions i.e. theory and Ks.

WAYS TO WIN:

-Theory is great. My defaults are CI>Reasonability and RVIs bad.

-If its in final focus it needs to be in summary. I want full extensions (internal links and warrants - not 2 second blips) . IF IT IS CONCEDED IT IS 100% TRUE. Defense fully in summary

-Signpost and warrant you arguments

-You can also read defense against your own case to kick out of turns i think it's funny and strategic

-Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

-"if im vibing with an arg then im prolly gonna nod my head. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing" -cooper carlilie

-Line by line in summary and ff (big picture is fine too)

-I'll to disclose and im perfectly fine with grilling/questions

RJ Shah Paradigm

Strake Jesuit '19 | Duke University '23

Email: RainDropDropTopSpeechDoc@gmail.com

Background: I did PF for four years in the Texas and National Circuits. Qualified for TFA State three times and TOC three times, clearing at both. I formerly coached for Strake Jesuit in Houston. I was heavily influenced by policy debate as a debater, so I generally agree with their debate norms. Treat me like a policy judge more so than an LD judge.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. I evaluate tech>truth only. I am tabula rasa, meaning you can read any argument as wild as you want and I will vote on it as long as it is warranted and not offensive. I mainly did LARP/traditional debate but also have experience debating theory and Ks, so you can run whatever you want. I only vote on arguments I understand, so I am more impressed by policy-esque arguments. I believe that my role as a judge is to be an educator and a norm-setter. In a nutshell, I take from Andy Stubbs in that I vote for the team with the strongest link into the highest layer of offense in the round.

Disclosure/Chains: If you properly disclose (tag-cite-at least first3/last3) to the NDCA PF wiki, I will guarantee a 29.5+. There is no punishment for not disclosing, but a reward for doing so. Tell me if you did. If you are sharing docs or spreading, use Speechdrop or email.

Evidence: If you cut cards instead of paraphrase, you get higher speaks. I will only call for cards if you tell me to or if it is contested. For citations, I just need author name and year.

Warnings: If you feel that a trigger warning is necessary, please give one before your speech. Also, if you feel the need to share pronouns, please do so before the round as well.

Speed: Clarity>Speed. If you are clear, go as fast as you want. I will say "clear" and "slow" if necessary. Slow down on author names and tags in case/rebuttal. Then, since I would be familiarized with your evidence, you can speed up summary/FF. Not the biggest fan of spreading; if you do, send docs. If you do spread, it must be cut card and not paraphrased evidence.

Style: Line by line debate only. Extend by author name and sign-post. Implicate all offense in terms of how it affects the ballot.

Speaker Points: Speaks are based off of in-round strategy only. Everyone starts with a 28 and I'll go from there.

Misc: Speech times are set. One team is aff and one team is neg. I only vote for one team. I only down one team. No double wins or double losses unless instructed by tab. Speeches are set i.e. first speaker gives case and summary. Fundamental rules are set. If you read an arg about why rule breaking is good, I will evaluate it, but my paradigm says that I have a low threshold for response.

[Part 1: Speeches]

Cases: Run whatever you want.

CX: I'm okay with open CX meaning your partner can join in to clarify answers. You can also both agree to use the rest of cross as prep time. You can skip GCX if you want.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal just has to answer turns on case, not defense. Don't read a blipstorm of paraphrased responses or card dump; I either won't be able to flow it or won't feel comfortable voting on it. Depth>Breadth. I like analytics especially when they implicate cards. You can read overviews, new advantages, add-ons, uniqueness updates, link boosters etc., but they must be based off of case or directly answer your opponent.

Summary: First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but must extend turns. Second summary has to extend defense and answer turns. Turns conceded out of second rebuttal are considered dropped for the round. All new implications must be made in summary. I am fine with advantage add-ons and link boosters in summary, but I would like it more if these are read in rebuttal if possible.

Final Focus: First FF can bring up new weighing. You can make new implications based off of arguments extended in summary. No new args in Second FF.

[Part 2: Tech Debate]

I will use a scale of 1-5 (1 very comfortable and 5 unfamiliar) of how I feel about judging these arguments.

*My preferences are LARP/Traditional >> Framework >> Theory/T > K >>> Tricks/Non-T/PIKs

*If there are multiple offs, please provide metaweighing between layers i.e. T > K args.

*I will evaluate any argument, but I can only vote on what I understand so be cautious about what you read.

*I like progressive policy arguments more than progressive LD arguments

Framework: 1; I like framework debate. Read in constructive. This includes framing related arguments i.e. AFC.

Kritiks: 3; No high theory and you're good. I'm not versed on that lit. I like topical Ks. K affs are fine too, but I hold the aff to a high burden on the alt (the plan) to solve. Reps Ks are also fine, and I also hold the alt to a high burden of solvency; also, you should make jurisdiction arguments.

Theory: 3; My defaults are CI>Reasonability and no RVIs. Still tell me what I should prefer. I don't like friv theory. I default T>K.

T: 2; I default drop the argument. I default T>K.

DAs: 1; Yes. My favorite type of argument

Plans/CPs: 1; Tell me why the CP is competitive. Solvency advocates help. I don't like multi-planked CPs.

PICs: 2; Same as CPs but you must also provide a net benefit.

PIKs: 5; Not a fan. I have the least experience with this arg so my understanding and threshold for response are low.

Tricks: 5; Not a fan. Very low threshold for response, but I will evaluate it to the best of my ability.

Non-T Positions: 5; I don't have much experience with this type of argument. Low threshold for response.

Misc: I'm not too familiar with arguments like permissibility, skep, presumption etc. so I will try my best to evaluate them, but my understanding and threshold for response are fairly low.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

Have Fun!

Santiago Weiland Paradigm

8 rounds

Hi y’all my name is Santi, i competed for Strake Jesuit for 4 years and closed out Texas PF State in 2020. I’ve read a total of nothing on this topic.

TLDR

Just warrant your arguments, carry across summary and i’ll vote for you most rounds. Any speed is fine but if you know for sure you’re going fast just send out a speech doc. All theory is fine and i’m less versed on K’s and tricks but if you explain it I’ll vote for it.

FULL PARADIGM

Full disclosure I 100% copied this paradigm from my old partner Cooper Carlile (Bold = most important)

If you say "off the clock roadmap" I will give you a 25. just tell me what the structure is

Debate is a game so I will evaluate / vote on (almost) any argument that you read.

I am TECH > TRUTH. If it is conceded it is true. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded :/ You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech doc otherwise i prolly wont catch everything especially if im unfamiliar with the topic

I will default to Clarity/Strength of Link + Magnitude weighing. If it is conceded and if it has a large impact, you're prolly gonna win. also i presume squo

I am aight with Theory (despite only running disclosure, bc... PF), and to a much lesser extent Kritiks, just make sure I can understand it. also if theory/Ks are read they should be sent as speech docs before they are read

also im good with tricks... just flesh them out in the back half for the sake of everyone in the round.

IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though even if its just a paragraph theory esque arg

If you read cut cards, I will start you at a 28. If you disclose on the PF wiki I will start you at a 28.5 and if you send a speech doc before each speech that you read carded evidence I will start you at a 29. email me speech docs (or questions) @ santiago.weiland@gmail.com Otherwise, I determine speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability.

If it takes you forever to pull up evidence I will get annoyed

please for the love of god signpost PLEASE and weigh

if it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it.

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" like dog come on. You can also read defense against your own case to kick out of turns i think it's funny and strategic

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too

if im vibing with an arg then im prolly gonna nod my head. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

"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 or a conceded higher level of the debate, you can call TKO. 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 an L20." - Cara Day

I will also disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians speaking on a big stage." So have fun!