Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

General stuff

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

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

Hello hello, I'm Vaibhav Choudhary, a first yr at uva. I did pf for four years in hs so i somewhat know what im listening to lol. I am pretty lenient on speaks, just be sure to speak clearly and at a moderate pace. **Also also, I am not familiar with the topic past a very baseline level, take the extra few secs to explain things to me. the better i understand what ur saying the better i can evaluate it**

I would prefer if you didn't spread, but if you do decide to spread just send me your speech prior to the round starting. I am Truth>Tech.

I expect all arguments to be extended all the way to the end of the round, if the arguments are not extended then I will assume that you dropped it. I am flowing on paper btw.

Make sure to frontline the opposing arguments, this will help me keep track of what arguments have been refuted and which arguments are still standing.

If you decide to bring in new information too far into the round (such as second team rebuttal), I will take this as being abusive and it will affect your speaker points.

Make sure to weigh your arguments, especially in the later parts of the round (e.g. urgency, scope, morales, etc). I want to hear impacts, not just empirical data. I'll be casting my ballot based on weighing and impacts, so make sure they are strong and apparent.

I don't have much experience with progressive arguments and theory, but I am fine with them. Just make sure that it is clear on what you are arguing and why I should vote for you on the ballot.

DON'T STEAL PREP TIME, let me know when you are starting your prep. I will keep track of both team's prep as well.

Hey! I'm Vishnu (he/him) and I debated PF at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland.

I will vote on any argument that is frontlined, extended, and weighted.

The second rebuttal has to frontline offense from the first rebuttal and the first summary must extend defense.

Please be respectful and remember to have fun.

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

1. I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
   
   

2. I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
   
   

3. If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
   
   

4. As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
   
   

2. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
   
   

3. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
   
   

2. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
   
   

3. In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal
   
   

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
   
   

2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
   
   

3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
   
   

4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
   
   

Theory

1. Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
   
   

2. Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
   
   

Other non-standard arguments in PF

1. I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
   
   

2. Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
   
   

2. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
   
   

3. I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
   
   

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
   
   

2. Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

General stuff written by me

I am very K friendly so don't be scared to read some super wacky and progressive args

I am tech>truth

SIGNPOST!!!!-- I really want to keep my flows organized/know what arguments you're responding to you-- if you signpost throughout the entire debate, I will give you .1+ speaker points

Give me a roadmap-- it seems pretty obvious, but there are so many people who don't do it

Don't say anything racist, ablest, sexist, discriminatory, bigoted, or problematic in any other way or I will vote you down and give you a 0 for speaks

DO LINE BY LINE-- I do policy debate where line by line and technical debate is very important, so I will pay very close attention to whether or not arguments are responded to

Again, I do policy so speed/spreading is more than ok, up until the point where you're unclear-- If you're unclear, I won't flow your arguments, won't evaluate them, and will probably give you low speaks

Saying "they don't have a card" for something is not a legitimate response-- you can warrant out stuff without having a card for it-- if you tell me that they "don't have a card" in response to a warranted out argument, I will probably laugh at you and will just not flow that response

I AM OPEN TO EVERY SORT OF ARGUMENT UNDER THE SUN UNLESS IT'S PROBLEMATIC-- don't be afraid to read something really abstract as long as you can 1. Warrant it out and 2. Explain why it's important/ why it matters

Kritikal debate is my thing-- I love K debate--if you can leverage your theory of power really well/frame my ballot through it I will love you for eternity

How I award speaks

0-25: You said something really problematic that I specifically told you not to say as per my paradigm

26-26.9: You failed to speak, or spoke for a very small fraction of your time.

27-27.9: Your flow coverage could have been better, but you addressed the major points of the round and added some new analysis.

28-28.9: You didn't drop any major responses/arguments, you offered some weighing, and condensed the round down to just one (max two) pieces of offense in the final two speeches.

Note that if you got below a 28 you probably violated/ignored some part of my paradigm and/or significantly annoyed me.

29-29.5: You weighed well, covered the flow very well, made high-quality responses, and made the right strategic decisions in the round.

29.6-30: You showed extraordinary technical ability in your debating, AND/OR you made a very interesting strategic decision that was not abusive, but granted you a great advantage in the round (ex. you went all in for a double turn your opponents made). If you make an interesting decision that turns out to be flawed, it will probably cost you the round, but I will reward the creativity with my speaker points.

THIS PART IS SHAMELESSLY STOLEN FROM RYLIE TORGUSON

do impact calc - weigh your impact and contextualize your arguments!!

Clash -- please respond to your opponent's arguments (line by line!!). saying that their evidence is not "valid," is not enough. If you are going to claim that the other team's evidence is flawed you have to tell me why or have some sort of detailed comparison (but please don't rely on args like this, its a waste of time unless you truly believe that there is something wrong with their ev)

Use prep and fill speech time! I've judged too many rounds where a team has a lot of good args throughout the debate and then gets up for the last few speeches and does tag line extensions for 30 seconds and sits down. This likely wouldn't be an issue if you utilized prep! It isn't a flex to have all of your prep left for the last speech and then proceed not to use it. It is not strategic.

PLEASE do not just re-read one of your earlier speeches in the summary or final focus!!!

Narrow down the debate in the last few speeches, don't go for too much. Give judge instruction, tell me where to vote.

Lastly, enjoy yourself! Have fun. It makes me so happy to see rounds where both teams look like they genuinely are havi

I'm Aidan Hubert, and I'm an incoming senior with two years of LD debate experience. I've only judged casual classroom debates and have very little actual judging debate, but I'll do the best I can. As for actual paradigms, it'll be a bit convoluted as I try to explain

first of all, I believe it's important to get the basic stuff out of the way. Racism, sexism, any obvious and intentional intolerance will not be tolerated. The same goes for obviously abusing your opponent. I'd be more than happy to mark down your opponent as the winner and give you minimum speak points. This sorta stuff should be obvious, and I hope I'd never need to do anything like that, but you can never be too sure.

Disclosure: having personally struggled with the LD Wiki I don't want to really see a lot of disclosure theories. If there's a genuine attempt ahead of time and nobody is purposefully trying to hide their case then I'm probably not going to like disclosure theory. Long story short, if you think that it's a major problem hindering the debate round, then run it, but there should be a pretty good reason.

Theory stuff: Honestly, I'm not the most knowledgeable about more advanced theory and the like. I won't stop you if you want to run it and I'll do my best to follow, but be aware I might not be the most knowledgeable on it.

Flowing: please make it easy for me to flow the round please. I'll do my best to flow everything but it's not impossible for me to miss something, especially if you spread or don't talk especially clear

Speed: be courteous. If your opponent asks you to slow down, please do that. If I ask you to slow down, please please do.

no

Hi my name is Zoe Jones. I will be a senior at Austin High in the fall, 2020 permitting. I've done LD for two years now, before that i did a semester of congress followed by a semester of PF and i've done a few different individual events mainly exempt and OO.

For Judging LD:

I think debate is a space to argue the direct effects of a topic being implemented against the consequences of not having it.

Disclosure:

I understand the struggle that is the LD wiki, if you haven't disclosed there then so be it but make sure you get your speech doc to your opponent thirty minutes or more before the round starts or they can run disclosure theory on you. While i'd prefer the round to come down to effects of the resolution I will vote off of disclosure theory. When the aff shares the doc please send them back all the things you might possibly respond with (not the docs just the names of DAs and K and theories you might potentially run) This is just so they can be a little bit prepared and ready for the round. Please don't run something that is not on this list.

Trigger Warning:

Provide trigger warning for anything that might be triggering before round, please use common sense in this aspect. Debate is meant to be a safe space for all, if you fail to make it such the round will end early and I will report you to tab with an automatic loss. Also if you feel unsafe or uncomfortable in a round please let me know either privately messaging me or some other signal. Depending on the level of concern the round will either be terminated with an automatic win for the person who felt unsafe or both of you will receive a bye. If you take advantage of this and try to use it to win I guarantee you will regret it. This is for extreme cases only.

Speed:

Speed is fine with me again I prefer to follow along with the docs. If your opponent asks for a slower speed and you do not speak at a slower speed your speaks will most be lowered. In any speech but especially your rebuttals if you want something to get flowed slow down and say it in a very clear voice. I will flow off the doc as well but if you make a point that you really want to be flowed emphasis on it will definitely help.

Flowing:

I like to see the flow condense down to the major points of the round rather then contesting the things that hold no real grounds in the round. If there is an obviously conceded point hammer that in, but don't forget to bring it up in every speech you make. If you want something from Cross-X to be flowed make sure you say it in a speech because I will pay attention to Cross-X but I won't flow it. Sometimes flows get messy but proper signposting in and before your speeches will make it easier for me to make a concise and accurate ballot. Also a line by line in later speeches is very appreciated as it throughly attacks your opponents points and sets up the foundation of what you see as the major arguments of the round.

Preferences:

While I prefer morality arguments to theory and Kritiks debate is a space for debaters and not for judges and as such the debate should operate on a debaters terms. And as your judge I will accommodate to whatever style of debate you choose. While judge modification is a thing it should honestly be judges modifying to debaters because your job is already hard enough.

Theory:

Again I'm okay with any arguments you want to read. My theory is admittedly not the best but if I have to look stuff up after the round I will. But you should make everything you read understandable for everyone your opponent included. Please do not take advantage of something your opponent doesn't understand if they ask a question don't steamroll them or make it unnecessarily complicated. If your opponent doesn't understand something chances are your judge doesn't either. Because we aren't supposed to bring outside knowledge into the round making stuff understandable is crucial.

Kritiks:

Similar to theory, run them if you want but make it understandable and clear. Don't steamroll your opponent and clarify if they ask.

80,000 offs:

Don't read 80,000 offs. I know it's a strategy to swarm your opponent with so many things that they couldn't possibly accurately respond to all of them but its not cool. Especially when in the next speech you drop all but three of them and leave your opponent struggling to condense their flows. Basically I don't like any strategy that try's to force your opponent to flounder. And if you attempt one of these and your opponent is prepared and responds accurately then they're getting very high speaks.

Accidents:

People misspeak, accidents happen, all that fun stuff. If you say something wrong please clarify that within your speech time or during your prep time. I understand that the stress of a round can get to you and you can accidentally word something wrong or slip up over a point. This cannot be used to add an argument, get rid of an argument or anything along those lines. It is simply to reword a point that you may have tripped over because I don't want anxiety to be anyones downfall in debate. Confidence is key but confidence has to be gained through success.

Prep Time:

I'm fine with prep being open prep or closed prep. As long as both parties agree. So if you both are okay with open prep then go for it. Again I will not flow it but it can be useful for someone who needs clarification. Do not use that time to trip someone up, open prep is for clarifications not lines of questions, lines of questions are for Cross-X time. Also do not steal prep time, I know that is a widely known rule but it still happens all the time, your prep time ends when you're ready to send the doc out. You do not have to send the doc during prep time but if you take more then thirty seconds to send it after ending your prep time that is stealing prep and your speaks will be lowered. After the doc has been received check everyone is ready then begin your speech. Feel free to use other peoples prep time as well as you only have your 4 minutes but working while your opponent is prepping is good use of your time.

If you have any questions email me at coronacationtourney@gmail.com, yes I would like to be part of the email chain. Let's all have fun at this tournament okay? Anyways see y'all there.

pranav.kalkunte@gmail.com

The Greatest Conceivable Pranav Kalkunte exists and determines morality!

1] Ontology - there are 2 conditions for existence, existence in mind, and in reality. A being that exists, in reality, is definitionally greater than something that doesn’t exist. Thus, if the GCPK exists only in the mind but does not in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than the GCPK. But we can’t conceive of something greater than the GCPK by definition. Thus, if the GCPK exists in the mind, then the GCPK exists in reality.

2] Motion- Objects are in motion. Everything in motion was put in motion by something else that is moving. There must be a first mover, and that is the GCPK. The alternative is an infinite regress, something relies on the further back and there is no starting point.

3] Contingency- there are 2 forms of being, a necessary and a contingent being. An existence is contingent if it is based on the existence of something else. Not everything is contingent, because then, by definition, it all could have never existed. Thus, the necessary being exists, a being that can’t not exist. The necessary being is GCPK.

4] Degrees - Properties come in degrees. In order for there to be degrees of morality, there must be something perfect against which everything else is measured. The GCPK is the pinnacle of perfection against which everything else is measured.

5] Teleology- essence precedes existence- everything has a purpose. A cup exists to hold water and is made so by purposeful design. To be purposeful, there needs to be a creator of purpose, which is the GCPK.

6] Pascal’s wager – default to a belief in the GCPK since disobeying the GCPK’s will would be infinite badness, but irrationally following a nonexistent GCPK is only instrumentally bad.

7] Performativity – you couldn’t contest the arguments of the 1AC without being here because of the first mover which means every argument you make concedes the authority of the GCPK and collapses to me.

Thus, we ought to remain in consistency with the GCPK’s will and the GCPK’s will is infinitely good.

Hello! I will be a high-school debater in the coming fall, and I've done primarily PF for a little more than 3 years. In my 3 years in middle school, I have went to the MSTOC, MS Texas State, City Championships, and more. As a speaker, I have placed first in quite a few tournaments and continue to strive to do better as always.

(Additionally, for some reason Tabroom is not showing my past rounds that I have judged but I can assure you that I have judged numerous rounds both on this platform and IRL)

PF/BIG QUESTIONS:

In these two types of debate, I always expect consistent signposts and road maps. When you're speaking, I'm okay with spreading, but I expect it to be audible for both parties, and for you to enunciate the tag lines of your card/arguments. In crossfire, I am okay with people being aggressive, but make sure you let your opponent speak. Additionally, like most judges, I am okay with you linking back your case into the question, but crossfire is NOT rebuttal time.

If both sides drop an argument and you would like to bring it back up, please try to bring it back up in the next solo speech you have besides the final speech of course. When it comes to summary speeches I really need you both sides to look at the bigger picture to some degree. Additionally, as debaters vary as to where they start their weighing, I need to see it at some point in the debate before the final speech as well.

In summary, I expect collapsing! I really need to know what is the basis of your case and what it has truly come down to thus far.

I allow all ethical arguments to be made in the round as long as they have a large standing overall in the round. Additionally, I expect all your arguments to be warranted (again to a certain degree) as that can play a large stance for both the opponent and myself. Additionally, there should be absolutely NO COUNTERPLANS OR KRITIKS. PF and BQ just aren't designed to allow that argumentation and I will not evaluate those arguments at all. However, you can run theory, but it must have a large standing to do so.

For Speaker points, my rules are pretty simple. I don't think that HOW you speak has anything to do with speaker points. Instead, I judge based on the content that you produce.

30-29- Grounds well in the debate, strategically plays arguments, focuses on the bigger picture, and debunks the opponent's points.

29-28- Still does well in the round, focuses sometimes on minute arguments, has some trouble with regulating the opponent's claims.

28-26- Doesn't have a complete grasp of all argumentation and thus can't strategically play certain arguments, has trouble with debunking the opponent's points.

26-25- Simply doesn't understand the topic, can't prove/carry points out throughout the debate, consistently contradicts themselves throughout the round.

25-20- Intentional rude statements made towards the opponent(s), judge, or just blatantly racist, sexist, or discriminatory statements about something or someone.

LD

For LD, my requests are quite simple. I, of course, am okay with spreading but I need you to be able to go at a still audible pace. No more than 310 WPM. This way, no side can blame the other for not being able to understand arguments. Secondly, I want DEFINITIONS. For LD there are so many progressive cases that there has to be some underlying basis on both sides. Thus I need definitions from both parties. If not, whichever side provides one, I will be forced to agree with their definition.

For LD, like all other forms of debate that I judge, I expect everything to be warranted (to some degree). The important factor for being a judge is to be 3rd party and unbiased. While I can, "Buy", arguments, I can't just assume what you mean and try to bridge a gap. There has to be warranting to some extent.

For Speaker points, my rules are pretty simple. I don't think that HOW you speak has anything to do with speaker points. Instead, I judge based on the content that you produce.

30-29- Grounds well in the debate, strategically plays arguments, focuses on the bigger picture, and debunks the opponent's points.

29-28- Still does well in the round, focuses sometimes on minute arguments, has some trouble with regulating the opponent's claims.

28-26- Doesn't have a complete grasp of all argumentation and thus can't strategically play certain arguments, has trouble with debunking the opponent's points.

26-25- Simply doesn't understand the topic, can't prove/carry points out throughout the debate, consistently contradicts themselves throughout the round.

25-20- Intentional rude statements made towards the opponent(s), judge, or just blatantly racist, sexist, or discriminatory statements about something or someone.

Finally, as always, please be respectful to your opponents, have fun, and happy debating!

4 years of pf, 6 years of debate. rmhs & pda

flay judge leaning flow. tech > truth

add me to email chains: graceliactive@gmail.com

i can handle some speed, but over 225 wpm im annoyed

if you want to win, you prob shouldn't run theory or ks bc i hate them

time yourself or we can do timing your opponents

signpost or i will literally stop flowing

judges are lazy, including me. write my ballot for me in your ff, it helps

good luck!

about

• hi, i'm ellen (ellen.liu007@gmail.com) !! she/her, captain @ potomac oak + poolesville'25
• i've been debating on the nat. circuit for ~4 years (qualled to toc, ranked 5th in the nation, & reached outrounds at upenn, harvard, stanford, etc.)
• turn your cams on.. that should be done without saying

prefs

• read/do whatever (as long as its not - ist)
• tech > truth
• please collapse
• signpost signpost signpost
• weigh (comparatively)!!
• 2nd rebuttal must frontline
• be interactive PLEASE.

prog

• i'm more familiar w theory compared to ks
• would prefer neither

speaks

• +1 speak if we finish the round early (please do not take forever to find your cards, preflowing, etc. -- you should be doing that before the round starts)
• +1 speak if you follow me on spotify

feel free to ask any questions !!

not a pf judge. debate well and explain to me how to vote. do not read conditional advocacies if that's a thing in pf.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD coach for Peninsula HS

tech over truth - i will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches.

"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su

i do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate the following debates:

-phil ac vs phil nc

-k aff vs non cap kritik

-phil ac vs kritik

non-condo theory shells are dta unless otherwise justified

convinced by reasonability - affs need a c/i

i tend to read a lot of evidence - spending more time reading quality evidence will serve you well

better for framework 2nrs that go for fairness

i try not to be expressive in round if i make any facial expressions it is probably unrelated

Tech > truth

The most important thing is to have fun. Debate is a learning experience and everything you learn from it is valuable. I will give as much constructive feedback as possible to help you out for the rest of your debate rounds.

Make sure to compare arguments and collapse (pick 1-2 arguments to mainly focus on in the second half of the round).

For any specifics, just ask me before the round starts!

Basically couple of things
1. signpost

2. Make eye contact if possible, turning on camera really shifts my view towards your side

3. Trad>Prog- but one important caveat- This is in terms of an understatement. If you can explain and assert why you win by all means

4. Spread, idk up to you- two things- first consent from your opponent, second speech doc

Disclaimer- to not hurt our novice babies don't spread or read prog without consent

5. Don't be a yes man- be your self. Just because you say yes sir and speak in a cordial manner won't shift any bias towards you. In fact, the less yes man you are, the better

6. Especially for cross x- be assertive pls, don't cower, but don't be too assertive. Ill usually give a signal, a grunt of some sorts if it's getting firey on one side

7. Tech>truth- but again protec novice babies.

8. I will judge based on the debate, and if the opponent and you consent then Ill flow and decide based on how close the arguments were based to topic

9. I actually, really like rithviks paradigm, imma link it, check it out:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=82866

10.And this should be obivious- but no -isms: Sexism, Racism, and what not. Automatic 25 in speaks, and heavy bias towards the other side

11. If your stressed, go watch some of these YouTubers- Elliot Choy, Johnny Harris, And Peter Mickinnon. If you can name one place they have been to- end of the speech- and clearly, automatic 30

Also just a quick thing- if you can slip the phrase, the quote "The two most peaceful warriors are patience and time in your speech, *clearly*, automatic thirty :) And more respect if you can say who wrote that,and why he's famous

Things about me- Have debated 3 years ~2 years competing. Conflicts- Idk RIV STEM, but its not like ill go easy on you guys anyways.

Finally- if there is anything you want to clear up, tell me before the round. Ill answer them straight up.

good luck for my CCO ppl. Hope you do well

A little about me :)

Marcus Repsher

I have done PF for 5 years among other speech/debate events

Student at Bixby highschool

What I consider interventionist on the judges part and I will not do

I will not call for evidence unless told to by your team

I will not decide if a teams argument is factually based on my own knowledge of the topic that is up for you to prove to me

I will not ask clarifying questions after the round

my job as the judge is to simply observe all information presented to me and the way you want me to interpret it so please tell me how

Debate stuff

I will evaluate literally any k, shell, or random theory (within reason...) just make your interp clear, if you decide you want to change the norms of debate and turn this into a theory round I'm 100% behind you if you can make your line of reasoning sound and explain violations etc.

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean I enjoy hearing shoe theory or the like.

Flow/tech judge

Tech > Truth almost 100% of the time

Debate is not a game and is to be considered much more than just that rudimentary definition. Remember the topics you discuss often have real-world impacts that affect others and or your opponents, debate isn't always about the ballot.

TW/CONTENT WARNING/Misgendering

I am a firm believer in TW theory and the violence that can be caused by debaters not reading content warnings before potentially triggering topics. I ask that you read your case before the round and consider with each contention if it needs a CW, if there is even a question about the contention needing one please include it before the content is read. If your plan is to read a case that includes potential triggering content as most topics have, please include some format of an anonymous opt-out system and a backup case/contention. If in the event these standards are not met I am fully prepared to drop the debater or tank their speaks. If you have any questions about this/your case please speak to me before the round or coin flip. I will fight tab about dropping the debater who violates this before I allow debate to become an exclusionary event.

TKO
At any time you can Invoke a TKO (Technical knock out) and I will end the debate there with a win to your team and award you 30 speaks, however if not your speaks will be set at 20. This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you’ve solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate BUT only do this if you believe that your opponent has absolutely no route to the ballot.

Some other stuffs

Run whatever you want, I will do my best to follow. Judge adaption is a sorry excuse for lay judges to be lazy and not actually learn debate.

You may read your cases as fast as you would like, but if you would like me to flow key cards or points please slow down on them or send me your speech doc.

If you plan on running very long link chains please explain them to a full extent or include me on an email chain- marcus.repsher@gmail.com

if evidence is asked for at the end of a round please make sure the entire card is at least an 8 point font or I assume you don't want me to read it.

If in Lincoln Douglas, the same goes for card font also if your running unique Criteria or Value please explain them to the full extent if you wish for them to be flowed.

I usually value tech over the truth but I do not think in a strict offense/defense paradigm. Terminal defense, presumption, and negligible risk are possible.

post rounding is acceptable if you have nice things to say or questions for me or your opponent, post rounding is not the time nor the place to argue my RFD, if you absolutely disagree with my RFD please take it to your coach or a tournament director arguing with me in round will get you nowhere.

PUBLIC FORUM

Public Forum is an evidence-based debate.

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss, unless offered a framework or observation this is how i will judge your round.

I do not mind sitting during grand cross, during 1st speaker and 2nd speaker cross i do prefer you stand.

There is a difference between being assertive and rude.

I will assume you to be well versed in the rules in public forum, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

If you don't offer a framework of what you need to prove to win or the opponent needs to prove, i will hold your opponents framework in the round (technically you should just adopt their framework but you get the idea), If neither of the teams offer one I will decide the round over the weighing that has been offered to me.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges I do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather than "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

Lincoln Douglas

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss. Of course other factors will be taken into consideration but this is the very basics.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

There is a difference between being assertive and rude, please understand the difference.

You can stand or sit during cross, doesn't matter much to me.

I will assume you understand the rules of Lincoln Douglas debate, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

Please understand these are the absolute basics of how I will judge your round. Of course other factors will influence my decision, but that is tailored to each round.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges i do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather then "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

General rules

I do not tolerate mansplaining

I'm not an interventionist judge in any sense I weigh the round how you tell me to, I will, however, become interventionist when you become homophobic, racist, transphobic, or any other form of bigotry.

If you are going to spread, please ask all parties involved before the round starts (aka case reading).

If you ask me to disclose after round, I will but only if asked.

Do not trap your opponents into some terrible tunnel vision of a framework. (I know this doesnt translate to everyone so if you have a question about this ask me before round)

Please keep cross as professional as possible, I understand the want to prove a point, this does not mean you can be rude to your opponent.

Please take any critique that I give you to heart, I am in no way a snobby judge who will get mad if you move your hands too much, I really wish for you to do better.

Of course all of this goes deeper and if I listed all rules I think debaters should follow we would be here all day. The most important rule is for you to go to a tournament and enjoy yourself, debate is in no way meant to be a exclusive rude community.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ASK BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS

I have debating experience in novice and varsity circuits. I am relatively tech over truth. I don't mind spreading, but I would really appreciate a speech document (probably would drop speaks if I am not given one). If you're going to spread for rebuttal, I want a speech doc (or just don't spread cause I will probably give higher speaks if you don't, however, I wouldn't decrease speaks if you do). People can make mistakes on flows, so make sure to keep emphasizing what was extended and dropped in your and your opposition's speeches. Make your LINK CHAINS CLEAR!!! And make sure to warrant your arguments. Try to speak clearly especially if we are doing this virtually. I will rudely and aggressively interrupt you by saying/screaming CLEAR if I don't understand what you are saying!!!! I may or may not keep time, but I will be lenient if you go a little over time unless the opposition calls you out. If you go over 15 seconds overtime, I will start decreasing speaks.

Constructive- Try to speak at a steady pace, try not to use filler words! I don't like extremely slow speeches, so I prefer 230 or more words per minute.

Crossfires- I like assertive crossfires!!! I DO NOT FLOW CROSSFIRES!!! If something significant was mentioned during one, please bring it up in the next speech (also mention that it was stated in cross). I don't really care about grand cross. If both you and your opposition choose not to do it before the round, I will drop grand cross and give you an additional minute or two of prep (I may also boost speaks ;) for saving me some time).

Rebuttals- I would appreciate it if you go in the order of the contentions. Please provide a roadmap, you don't have to say off-the-clock roadmap though. DO NOT WEIRDLY ALTERNATE BETWEEN YOUR AND YOUR OPPOSITION'S CASE (I WILL CUT SPEAKS!!!), and if you signpost throughout the speech, I will BOOST SPEAKS! I want to see front lining from both sides!!! And I don't expect any, but I hope to see some weighing in rebuttal:) I will give both teams some sticky defense, but please try to respond to and extend everything.

1AR specifics- I am fine with DAs. I want to see front lining. ALSO, GIVE ME A ROADMAP IF YOU VALUE YOUR SPEAKS!!! :P

2AR specifics- I NEED A ROADMAP. The second speaking team is responsible for OFFENSE AND DEFENSE and I want an organized speech (follow your roadmap!!!!).

Summary- I WILL LOVE YOU IF YOU COLLAPSE!!!!! (Please specify which contention you're collapsing on). Also, collapsing is not the same thing as conceding (PLEASE DON'T CONFUSE THOSE!!! I WILL DROP SPEAKS!!!). WEIGH, RESPOND, AND EXTEND!!!! I will allow the first speaking team to bring in new evidence during summary if they are responding to opposition's responses to rebuttal. I DO NOT LIKE WHEN THE SECOND SPEAKING TEAM BRINGS UP NEW EVIDENCE DURING SUMMARY!!! DO NOT DO THAT, I WILL DOCK SPEAKS!!! Your opposition doesn't have any more speeches left to respond to your new evidence, so don't do it!!! I will consider this abusive!!! If you do it, and your opposition calls you out, I will boost their speaks!!! Collaboration between partners is crucial when transitioning from rebuttal to summary, so a smooth extension of your partner's rebuttal responses during summary will boost speaks.

Final Focus- WEIGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! TELL ME WHY YOU WIN THIS ROUND!!!! DO NOT BRING UP NEW EVIDENCE OR EVIDENCE YOU DIDN'T EXTEND!!!! I will not vote on new material or responses and only things extended through summary!!! WEIGHING is something I really look forward too!

Weighing- Don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, explain why what you are saying is true and compare your impacts with theirs, explain yours are more significant!!!! (I like impact weighing). Logical weighing (XYZ will or won't happen/this is better longterm) is okay if well explained, but I prefer statistics/contextualized impact weighing when evaluating speaks. Logical weighing over statistical weighing won't really affect your ballot as long as logical weighing is actually logical!!! If both teams end up at the same impact, I have to look to the stronger/best-defended link chain. But in general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts.

Prep- I may or may not keep track of prep. If your opposition catches you going over prep, I will deduct your speaks and boost theirs. Again, you can earn an additional minute or two of prep if you guys get rid of grand cross. If I am keeping track of prep and you go over time by more than 5 seconds, I will deduct speaks. If you stop prep and then take an additional 10 seconds setting up time....just don't do that.

Cards and asking evidence- Don't take too long please and have everything formatted. Have the source links ready. I probably wouldn't call for evidence during a round unless your opposition prompts me too or if it's highly contested during the round. KNOW YOUR CASE AND WHERE YOUR EVIDENCE IS!!!

Progressive- I am not familiar with many progressive arguments and most likely won't know how to assess it. I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF YOU DON'T RUN THEM (Especially if you are novices!!!!!!!). I am okay with framework, disads, and counter plans. If you run anything else like tricks or theory, I am not comfortable with assessing them so you would be bringing my bad assessment upon yourself. I don't have enough experience with progressive arguments and may drop them or your speaks depending on how well I understand it. To stay safe, just don't run it. However, if you do, whatever (Just don't blame me for how it ends or feel bad if you get judge screwed).

Other- I will start of with 30 speaks for both sides and will assess those as the round progresses. Following my paradigm will ensure high speaks. Pre flow before rounds and don't forget to give content warnings as needed. I don't mind paraphrased cases but use evidence fairly. If you misuse evidence and get caught, YOUR SPEAKS WILL FACE A DETRIMENTAL DROP AND I WILL DROP YOUR ARGUMENT. Give me an order before speeches. I will disclose my decision after round (Usually) and give an RFD. If you have questions or choose to postround, that's okay. If you're post rounding, be assertive and confident in your reason because if it's a stupid reason, I will dock speaks. Finally, if the round gets extremely messy and I don't buy anyone's arguments, I will default to the first speaking team. Stay respectful and polite. There is a fine line between assertiveness and aggression. Also, if you really really want me to give you high speaks, quote Taylor Swift/Selena Gomez/Ariana Grande or DAY6 songs and if I catch it, I'll give you a 30 as long as you weren't rude/don't need unnecessary amounts of improvement:)

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!!!!!

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Teacher at CDA with 3 years of LD, 2 years of PF, 1 year of Policy experience

I can evaluate any arguments and comprehend any level of speed

Speaks depend on organization, politeness, and clarity

Don't be afraid to read funny/weird stuff

I will flow on a spreadsheet on my laptop

Contact: colewoody1022@gmail.com

P.S. Most of this Paradigm is taken from my teammate, Katherine Yue

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

I can flow your overall case and round, as long as you aren't spreading. Keep in mind that I may miss something, so never assume I'll make a connection that should've been made by either you or your partner in the round. For example, if your opponent concedes a response or drops an argument, let me know so I can make certain I have that written down, if you don't then it's a 50/50 on something that could potentially win you a round.

Constructive

-I'll evaluate any argument/response well explained the first time it is brought up and extended & weighed later on.

-Please don't spread. You can send a speech doc if you plan on it but I'll probably drop your speaks and not get half of it because flowing off a document kind of ruins the whole speech aspect of debate (but I'll try my best).

Crossfire

-I don't flow cross, but it can affect your speaks. Don't be overly aggressive, if you have to cut someone off do it nicely. Don't try and force your opponents into conceding something here. If an important point is brought up, bring it up in a speech, because I won't do it for you.

-Cross isn't a time to ask for evidence, do that during prep not CX.

-Don't leave empty space within cross, if your opponent doesn't have a question, then you should be prepared to continue poking holes in their case, don't waste what little time you have.

-Don't be afraid to have fun during cross, if you want to make jokes and laugh then go ahead, this time is meant to help you not me

Rebuttal

-Everything said in 1st rebuttal must be responded to in the following speech (2nd rebuttal) or I consider it conceded. Don't try to respond later/access something that was attacked. If your opponent drops attacks, tell me and extend it!

-Interact with your opponent's arguments directly! Everyone reads generic blocks, but if your responses interact directly with their evidence/specific link chain, I'll bump your speaks. I think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)

Summary

-You should collapse! Extend offense & defense, weighing needs to start here if not in rebuttal.

-Don't bring up new things here unless front lining.

-Extend everything you want me to vote on! I'll only look to things said earlier in the round if there is nothing left for me to vote off at the end (unlikely).

Final focus

-I really like a review of your points and attacks that still stand, but I primarily want voters and weighing to happen in this speech. Everything extended should be from summary, including weighing.

-This is the most important speech, in my opinion, so make sure to drive through your voters for the round if you want to win.

Weighing

-Don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, explain why what you are saying is true, and compare your impacts with theirs, explain yours are more significant.

-Logical weighing (xyz will or won't happen/this is better long-term) is okay, if well explained, but I prefer statistics/contextualized impact weighing.

-If both teams end up at the same impact, I have to look to the stronger/best-defended link chain. But in general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts.

-Do not! weigh on arguments you have no access to.

Progressive arguments

-Since it's PF I'll only evaluate dis-ads and theory shells if a severe violation has occurred (i.e. the opponent discriminated against you on sexuality, race, etc. )

-I will not evaluate theory unless prior consent has been given by either party before the round has started (I need to hear both sides firmly agree, the absence of no doesn't mean yes)

-I prefer substance over everything

-I'm more of a trad judge, so try to keep that in mind when running progressive args

Other

-Please pre-flow before the round! It makes things run a lot faster in the long term.

-Give me the order before speeches (Off-the-clock roadmaps <3).

-I'll try to disclose every round and give an oral rfd (If allowed).

-I won't usually call for cards unless I'm told to or it's heavily weighed on. If a card I call for is misused I'll drop all arguments involving it. Paraphrased cases are okay, but cut and use evidence fairly.

-I firmly believe in tech>truth, so if something is false or you think I need to call for evidence, tell me, because I won't unless you give a valid reason as to why I should.

-Please ask questions/postround if you want, but be nice.

-I'll time every speech/prep but I expect you to as well. 10+ seconds overtime=lower speaks

-Voting for you should be easy, so weigh, extend, refute, do all the things you should in a typical round. If the round gets messy to the point where there is nothing I can vote on, I'll default to the first speaking team.

Speaks

-Everyone's speaks start at 28, I'll drop/raise as the round progresses.

-Follow the paradigm!

-Read content warnings as needed

-Most importantly, be respectful, nice, & overall don't take things too seriously and you'll end with high speaks.

-Please make sure to either find something enjoyable or educational about your round

Hi, I'm Julia, but you can call me Jules or Jae. I use any/all pronouns so knock yourself out.

I've done debate for six going on seven years. I'm mainly an LD debater but have done PF and CX in the past. I started out as a traditional debater, so that's something I am well versed in, but Larp is what I'm the most comfortable with. With that being said, here are my preferences.

1) Larp/Theory

2) Trad.

3) Non-traditional K's/Trix/Phil

Speaks: I'm pretty laid back when it comes to speaks. I grade on the (25-30) scale. If you spread and/or run any sort of progressive content without my or your opponent's permission you will get an automatic 25, no questions asked. Same thing with any kind of sexist, racist, or homophobic slur or anything of that nature. I'm fine with cursing, as long as it's in your card. Cursing at either me or your opponent will result in an automatic 25. If you manage to make a Taylor Swift reference sometime in round, I'll give you at least 28 speaks.

Spreading: Spreading is fine, just please send me a speech doc if you plan to do so.

My email is juliayangfb@gmail.com

Other notes: Tech>Truth. Don't just tell me I should vote for you because you won a specific thing. Tell me how and why you won it. Extensions are incredibly important, but please don't try to bring up already dropped arguments for me to extend, I won't count them. In other news, I like clash. Clash is good and I will vote off of it. But please don't try to be purposefully aggressive to create clash. Don't try to defend your whole case throughout the entire round. Collapsing to only one or two arguments is perfectly fine. I will not vote off the framework debate alone. Please impact weigh!!!!! Finally, please be mindful of who your opponent is. You forfeit your right to complain about a loss the minute you spread or run progressive on a novice.

My discord is acreamcolouredteacup#5631 if you need to contact me or have any other questions.

With all of that said, good luck and may the odds forever be in your favor.

hi ! i debated pf for 4 (ish) years at dulles, reach me whenever @ katherineyue@rice.edu

general

preflow before!

the best way to get me to vote for you is to spend your last speeches pointing things out to me (dropped response/extended arg/your link chain)

you can spread if you want but you still need to be clear, i won't flow + eval off docs if your speech is incomprehensible to me

especially in ld/policy prioritize making your arguments clear to me over more evidence + arguments if you want me to understand + really vote on something

progressive

i basically debated all substance, treat me as a flay judge & run progressive if you want but i probably won't understand it (theory/ks) unless there's a clear violation in round

speeches

i was a second speaker so i prioritize responses that interact with your opponent's arguments directly ! everyone reads generic blocks, i'll be more responsive to evidence & warranting/responses i haven't heard before. i think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)

go line by line/in a intuitive order (ie your flow then opponents) + roadmap before, if i can't follow your responses/extensions logically i can't vote on it

don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, it doesn't mean anything if unwarranted, i tend to be preferential towards statistical/impact weighing over logical

ps i <3 (nonbasic) taylor swift references