As a former debater, I am qualified and will give feedback not only on your speech but also in ways you can improve your case. Be sure that you offer well developed arguments that show that you understand the topic, as well as your case. In debate, it is important to make sure that you have enough evidence to back up your theories, but also enough commentary to tie everything back to the case as a whole. Make sure your case is not just a bunch of cards after another, I want to know why and how things relate.

Framework and your speeches are extremely important. Your framework should have relevance and be upheld throughout all aspects of your case. If you can prove to my why your framework is stronger than your opponents, this will give you an advantage on the ballot. Not only that, but your speech should be convincing and not unclear. Speed is fine, but make sure that your value and criteria, warrants, authors, or anything you want me to remember is understandable.

To win my vote on the ballot, you must do the following things. You must clash with your opponent. Do not spend all your speeches telling me why your case is the best and should win. You must tell me why your opponents case falls. Make sure that you clash. If you don't, it's no longer debate. It becomes two students public speaking. It is important to clash on framework. Your contentions may fall but convince me that your value/criteria is more important and should be upheld over your opponents. I value framework over evidence. Impact is also an extremely important factor of the ballot. Make sure you are kind and respectful throughout the round. Good luck!

if you drop a pogchamp randomly during round you get 30 speaker points. Normal stuff make sure to frontline and weigh and extend and stuff if you run friv theory then you get 30 speakers and automatic win thanks for coming to my presentation. In all seriousness, I think the educational value of debate comes from rudeness and arguing for example if you ever have road rage you need good rude debate skills as a result i will make rudeness a voter so if you scream louder than theh opponent during cross I will vote for you. jkjk

hi! i'm lily :) lilia.guiz@gmail.com

ASK ME ABOUT SPEAKS BOOSTS BEFORE ROUND

i'm a sophomore at binghamton and study math/philosophy. i debated in ld in high school and policy my freshman year of college, ndt qualled and ceda doubles.

i mostly read "pomo" and theory. but i have read almost every style of argument at some point, so read what you want and debate well.

my ability to understand fast spreading has never been great, and has only gotten much worse the past year as i'm not involved in debate outside of a bit of coaching, so please slow down. i am also unfamiliar with the topic and meta, but that shouldn't affect the way you debate, just avoid using any acronyms or explain what they are (especially if i am judging you rounds 1-2).

general thoughts:

[1] i do not have the power to decide what arguments are valuable and which kind aren't. if you can't answer a bad argument, my ballot will likely be an indication that you cannot answer bad arguments.

[2] tech>truth but arguments need warrants!!! not voting on under-explained arguments, even if it's an econ da i've heard a million times that wasn't explained in the 2nr.

[3] i am tab on content/trigger warning theory BUT reserve the right to end a round or hack against you if you try gratuitously discuss a sensitive topic, regardless of whether you read a warning or not

[4]do not delay rounds unless necessary. don't come to the room late (unless there's a legitimate reason, preround coaching/prepping is not), aff should be SENT at/before start time, don't steal prep time, don't go overtime in speeches, etc. i've never lowered speaks but will

[5] ev ethics stuff you will auto-lose for includes clipping and whatever gets you in trouble for academic dishonesty at a school (ie fabricating sources). if your opponent is doing these things, you should stake the round on them, but other forms of ev ethics (ie not providing a link) should be decided in-round.

[6] i appreciate being spoon-fed RFDs. realistically, you will not be getting good speaks if this does not happen

[7] i am not here to police the way you act or carry yourself, but i would much rather judge rounds where debaters treat each other with kindness and respect

[8] i agree with everything in this paradigm - i worked with mark when i was fresh out of high school, so a lot of the ways i approach debate as a judge/coach were influenced by him. i was coached by sesh joe and breigh plat in high school (if you are old enough to know who they are), so they were also influential to how i approach this activity in general

i’ve been out of the activity for a long time, idk what the meta is and anything about the topic

samshimi0402@gmail.com

what i read in hs: i read non-t affs about asian-americans every chance i could and when i couldn’t i read a plan. on neg i read a bigger variety of stuff but i never went for tricks

k/nont/performance - 1

larp - 2

t/theory & phil - 4

tricks - strike(trust me)

idk what to categorize any of this as

-read asian stuff infront of me at your own risk - my bar for this is higher and i will probably be more upset if done poorly than for other arguments

-call me sam not judge

-pls don’t stare at me in cx if debate goes irl again

- i cannot keep up with super fast spreading anymore, slow down pls

- i like debates with a little fire, i’m not saying be mean or anything but i would prefer not to listen to a really unenthusiastic debate

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

Overview

Hey everyone! My name is David Jia.

Good luck and have fun!

Misc Thoughts:
-Please extend args

-I prefer to see traditional style debate, i am very new

ask any other questions in round if you have any.

Goodluck and have fun!

emaill: davidjia39@gmail.com

For Yale:

Email: sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Did LD In HS for 4 years at montville. Been removed from debate a bit now, so def go on the slower speed. Send speech docs before round and set up a email chain. Good with Policy args, theory and stock Ks (cap, security, etc..). Will vote on spikes, but probably dont read a nailbomb AC. Probably not great for phil and pomo. Since i've been out for a while Im probably rusty so better to overexplain args especially complicated perms, link chains,etc..

hi, i'm graham. i competed at vestavia hills for two years, acquiring two bids and qualifying to the toc my senior year.

BERK EDIT:i haven’t really thought about or heard debate in a while. slow down (especially on analytics) and maybe even over explain.

add me on the chain- ingegrahamjohnstone@gmail.com

tldr: read anything. the pref chain is just indicative of what i read as a debater/how comfortable i am with each style. argumentative dogmatism is bad! i also heavily align ideologically to my former coach sira ahuja, whom i will quote multiple times in this paradigm.

pref chain:

k - 1

policy - 1/2

theory - 2/3

tricks - 3

normative phil - 4/5

disclaimer

i do have very slight hearing issues so i will sometimes corroborate my flow with the doc. however, that also means that you should slow down and clear off the doc (which you should have been doing anyways). if i don't catch something, i'll be upfront about it if applicable.

miscellaneous thoughts

- i like to read evidence (especially in policy rounds) - if you read good, warranted evidence and follow it up with contextual, explanatory analysis that makes it to where i have to do less reading, your speaks will be rewarded tremendously.

- lean neg on process and condo and some actor, lean aff on multi-actor, international, etc.

- (in the context of policy) big fan of new 2nr evidence - but will limit it to 4-5 cards at max.

- with regards to t-framework, i actually really love framework debates. despite reading mainly k affs in high school, i have been on both sides of the debate many times and am as neutral as can be. that being said, k 1ars against framework with little-to-no clarity regarding the affirmatives model of debate/the role of the negative will lose in front of me.

- in terms of k literature, most familiar with ir k's (namely grove), baudrillard, set col, psychoanalysis, cap (mainly beller), and queerpess. i never encountered afropess as a debater, but i did read some of warren, wilderson, and gillespies' works.

- i love creative arguments regardless of which style of debate they're categorized as. things like clash royale theory, the 21 savage kritik, the rider disadvantage, and alien wipeout ( thanks anshul) are things i enjoy very much. creativity/interesting strategy will be rewarded with better speaks if executed well!!! (this does not mean spamming random 1ar shells and throwing every other flow.)

things i don't like / will refuse to evaluate:

- do not commit one of the isms

- reading an argument that violates a pre-stated accommodation.

- very high threshold for disclosure against novices and / or small school trad debaters (anything else is fair game tho, i just think disclosure against those who don't know how to disclose / know what it is should be taught out of round.)

if you do any of these things (except maybe disclosure), expect a 25

speaker points:

i'll disclose them if you ask. it feels like debaters are getting less and less clear every year so if you speak well you will be greatly rewarded.

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

To keep things short and simple:

- I'm a freshman at the University of Texas at Austin, and did LD throughout my high school career.

- I like traditional more than progressive. If you read a progressive case, make sure you understand what you're saying. Try to explain your arguments logically and thoughtfully.

- I don't care if you spread; I actually like it if anything. With that said, debate is about getting your point across to the judge, not how many cards you can read in a short period of time. Please don't just sit there reading cards without explaining their impacts.

- Impact calculus and framework debates are enjoyable.

- Aggressive (but not offensive) CXs are entertaining.

- Don't be rude to your opponent.

LD Specific

Framework and contentions: I care about both the framework-level and contention-level arguments of the debate. Please don't drop your opponent's value or criterion. Relate your contentions back to your framework.

All Debate Events

Style and delivery: I can follow a very quick pace. You can spread as long as you can speak intelligibly. However, some debaters who spread are not intelligible. Please be careful to state your contention and sub-point taglines more slowly and clearly.

Cross-examination: Be respectful but assertive. Don't get into a conversational argument during cross-ex: it's for asking and answering questions.

Timing: Feel free to time yourself to help pace your speaking. If you want time signals, please tell me.

Notes: Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc as well as personal attacks on your opponent will result in an automatic loss. Please have author names and publication years of your evidence readily available.

Value/Criterion:

I listen closely for a well-organized case and rebuttal. Be sure to clearly state how your Value and Criterion (V/C) are relative to your cards and contentions. During the rebuttal, don’t lose the V/C argument, relate back to yours or your opponent’s V/C and how your arguments best accomplish the V/C(s) that is the focus of the round.

Solvency & Topicality:

These two are crucial in your cases and rebuttals. Reiterate your burden of solvency and stay on topic. Make sure your plan, evidence, and burden of solvency relate to the resolution.

Speaking:

Please make sure to articulate yourself, speak clearly.

Voters:

Be sure to include voters. Be careful and try not to completely drop a voting issue.

Overall: Be prepared, be organized, be professional and respectful, and be confident in your arguments and rebuttals.

Introduction

Name: Rishit Pradhan

Email: pradhanrishit@gmail.com

School: Stockdale '23

Top Level Thoughts (Read this if u want to win)

I think in terms of adaptation the stylistic preference of the judge comes prior to the stylistic preference of the event. So I’ll buy most args that aren’t problematic.

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

Email: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't os it's not going on my flow.

Background: I'm a private coach and previous coach at SWSDI and Brophy. I debated LD for four years and one year of college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once.

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

LD/Policy TLDR

Read anything at any speed and I can probably evaluate it (though preferably slow down, even just a tiny bit, for author name and tags). Ask specific questions if you have weird things you want to run that an average former debater judge wouldn't understand.

If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

For theory, I don't mind if you read a shell but I don't like when debaters read several shells purely out of strategy when no abuse occurred or to throw off a novice.

Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.

I love signposting, weighing, proper extensions

For policy--I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep.

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

Defaults (I can change if you explain why):

Tech > truth

Comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

Competing interps > reasonability

DTD > DTA

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

Random:

Flex prep is fine

Tag team is fine

I will not be timing unless you ask.

Don't care if you sit or stand.

No using rest of cross for prep.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

Tag team cross is fine.

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

Misc LD/policy things:

I don't think you have to read a framework with a plan, but if your opponent reads one then you're kind of screwed. I will eval a framework if there is one and framework is important for me.

Please label each section of your K (or any case, for that matter), it's really hard to figure out things when it's not labeled so it helps your case.

If you're running a pre-fiat ROB, you still need to answer your opponent's post-fiat framing (if applicable) to fully win framing.

Please follow all general LD rules (no new in 2, no conflicting offs, no double turns, etc.)

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

PF paradigm-On a tech panel, you can do whatever you want. On a lay panel, treat me like a lay judge. I feel that PF should be a debate any judge can walk into and understand, but if you're given a fully tech panel feel free to do what you want. However, take a moment to think if you're reading progressive in front of an LD/policy judge if your argument is structured properly, you know what you're doing, and you'll make the round interesting by reading it. If not, reconsider.

- Asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees.

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. Please don't excessively talk over each other, keep it civil.

- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.

- No new arguments in final focus.

- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.

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

Congress-

- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."

- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.

- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.

- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).

I did LD for 4 years and mustered about 200 rounds.

Feel free to email me if your questions reach beyond our time after the round!

Also please for the love of god add me to the e-mail chain

callahanstroud@gmail.com

Traditional

Speaks are based on how compelling and fluid your speaking was. The way you speak is totally irrelevant to my decision.

I assess the round by picking a winning framework and then applying that framework to the contention level debate. Framework itself does not impact my decision. I evaluate impacts through the "lens" of a criterion. Evidence does not Trump analytics. I find that often analytics can take out most evidence.

PF

a 20 second observation establishing an unwarranted philosophical weighing mechanism will not be evaluated. I'll weigh using the same loose notion of consequentialism most people use in day to day policy conversations. Give me good, analytical debate and I'll evaluate you accordingly.

Not traditional

I had a stint on the circuit my junior year and attended GDS a few years back. I'm as fluent in circuit language and argumentation as I am with traditional, but at some point I've debated against most kinds of positions. Policy is the one I'm most familiar with and feel the most comfortable weighing.

Here's my judging philosophy and my specific way of evaluating rounds:

Philosophy

I try to be tab. I will probably fail. To minimize the chance that you misunderstand or interpret the way I judge, refer to the bit below

1. Establish a weighing mechanism

Let's say that an affirmative criterion, a refutation to a negative Methodology K, and an affirmative T shell are the 3 arguments that the affirmative goes for in the 2AR. If I decide that the Methodology K is true, I no longer care about the criterion because it exists on a "lower" level of the debate. That being said, if I don't buy the K or the T shell, all I have left is the criterion and I will evaluate that. I will essentially start at the top and work my way down eventually stopping where I feel a side has distinguished themselves and proven an argument to be true.

2. Evaluate the round under said weighing mechanism

I will weigh and compare the impacts of the round under the established weighing mechanism. If I've decided that the framing of the T shell is the most important (lets say it emphasized fairness in the debate round) I no longer concern myself with the impacts of the criterion or the methodology K because they are irrelevant under the weighing mechanism. That being said, if you made a compelling argument that the impacts of the K are relevant under the T shell, I would absolutely weigh them

3. Tech > Truth with gut check unless compelled otherwise

If your argument is racist, it will fail the gut-check

If it's just stupid and your opponent doesn't have the sense to pick it apart, I will absolutely evaluate it

I will not evaluate unwarranted arguments. If you don't explain it, I don't particularly care if your opponent drops it. Be wary of this if you like to run tricks cases. A one sentence justification is fine if you give me a warrant, just make sure its there!

4. Speed is fine

Put a speech doc in front of my and I'll manage. Don't concern yourself with it unless I don't have anything to follow you with.

If you'll notice, my means of assessing both traditional and circuit boils down to the same principle. Give me a weighing mechanism and tell me how the impacts "weigh" under it. You will have no trouble if you do that

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

I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs.

I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, bringing everyone in the room into the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.)

Specifics

CX: Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? Which other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? Don't spread. If you "cross supply" an author or evidence, specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash. (Flush out your ideas.)

LD: Most focus should be on answering the WHY's - WHY is this wrong in the status quo, WHY is this harming people, WHY should we help, type of questions. (If we took a plan to congress and said it would cost $78M, they wouldn't say, "sure!" instantly; it would be, "wow, a lot of money. why should we spend this?") Strong V/C clash.

Extemp: Clear organization. Engaging speaking. Sources. Thorough development of what the question is asking - the context of the topic question.

Interp: Why did you choose this/these as a piece/s? Which aspect resonates with you...and why? Authenticity over emphatics. Natural and organic and what feels believable is more meaningful, for me, than a very dramatic and (overly) emotional interpretation of a scenario.

Specific Questions? I can BRIEFLY answer questions before the round.

Email: lydiawang327@gmail.com

Experience: Sammamish 23' debated 3 years on the circuit, acquired 6 TOC bids reading policy and K arguments, and currently 1A/2N at the University of Houston.

Coaching for Cho's Group, Vanguard debate, and LD consultant for Kinkaid.

Top level:

Tech>Truth - Yes this includes wipeout, spark, death k, whatever. I will not intervene against those arguments or other arguments that are considered "dumb." I will vote on anything that has a warrant.

Do not be unnecessarily mean - there's no reason to make someone feel bad over a debate.

Docs must be sent, I don't care if it is a local, evidence matters. I will not follow along on the doc during the round, but I will most likely read evidence after, sending a doc is not an excuse to be unclear. Strongly prefer word docs over PDFs.

Callouts, Ad homs, screenshots = auto loss. I am not here to evaluate the character of the debaters in the round, just the arguments that are made. If there is a true issue with safety in the round, you should contact your coach. This doesn't mean no disclosure theory, screenshots here are fine if you also forward the email chain to me.

I flow on paper - Please give pen time, be clear, and organized. I'll give two warnings after that I stop flowing. Seriously,

Inserting rehighlightings are okay ONLY if you explain why it matters/what the insert is saying. Otherwise, read them out loud if you want me to flow it.

---Marking a doc is prep time. If you ask for a marked doc, it's your prep time, you should be flowing. If you are not flowing your speaks will be docked. Compiling the doc is also prep time, prep time ends when you are done compiling and press send on the email chain. The more dead time there is in a round, the lower your speaks will be. Theres only speech time, tech time, cx time, and prep time, there is no such thing as flow clarification time---this is either prep or CX.

The easier you make the round to evaluate for me, the better your speaks will be - this means you should make the round very clean and take the clearest path to the ballot.

Policy:

- Default judge kick unless it's contested.

- Condo is good, Dispo does not mean you can set whatever condition you want, it means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight turned the net benefit.

- Love a good politics debate - better for spin on evidence here than most others.

Planless AFFs:

- Prefer AFFs that clearly defend and commits to a concrete action/advocacy out of the 1AC.

- It will be hard to convince me that framework is "psychological violence".

Ks:

- Should prove that the plan is a bad idea.

- Prefer Ks that are functionally DA+CP that turns and solves case.

- Uninterested in listening to super long overviews that don't serve any strategic purpose.

LD:

- If your argument relies on your opponent dropping it for you to be able to win on it, then I probably will not like it - Clash is necessary for good debates. If you're not sure what I mean by this, think punching theory with no 2nr I meets, I am not voting on that ever.

- Conceded arguments require warrants for me to vote on them, simply saying "they conceded x" is not enough.

- I am so tired of LD 2NRs that are 11 pointing condo, be more efficient and move on to substance.

- Strike me if you plan on spreading through 30 lines of analytics the same way you spread through a card, if you are unflowable I will just flow in my head.

- If you make me flow your 30 point underview I will be sadder if you don't go for a silly conceded trick that takes out an argument in the debate, than the fact that you made me flow all that.

- "Debate is hard" is not a real warrant for theory.

- Evidence Matters---I'm very comfortable voting you down if the argument you go for relies on a card that has like 5 words highlighted. I dislike the trend in LD to card spam advantages with 5 different impacts and all of which are so poorly highlighted.

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

I try to be a good judge, but if you run random Ks on me, i might miss the core of the debate.

i would strongly prefer if you called me "Your honor" (on in panel, say panel)

tell me your fav rap song, and I'll give bonus speaks based on that (to make sure that you read this)

Real paradigm below \/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Novice LD paradigm

It's a learning experience guys, I was in your shoes, I sucked too so

Y'all can ask me questions if your stuck at any time and I'll help you out

I emphasize fw a lot, but will vote off of impacts.

Do impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude)

If you run plan affs, I'll be mad and dock speaks, but go ahead lol

Prefer disclosure with me, do whatever you'd enjoy

If you'll be running anything prog (or what upperclassmen wrote for you, read the whole paradigm please)

LD Paradigm

First, I'm a more progressive judge, so I'm fine with almost anything.

I don't have a preference on disclosure, but if y'all don't disclose, don't spread or run high phil.

Spread all u want, but send me the docs. If you spread badly I'll dock speaks. Nobody likes incomprehensible spreading, T-T

Drown your speech in theory shells for all I care. Please make sure I understand them though cuz theory i don't understand makes me cry T-T

TIP: Sound like your opponent committed a war crime, and I'm more likely to buy it than just reading the shell in a monotone voice.

I do prefer empirical evidence over philosophy unless it's something like Baudrillard where you target the mindset.

It is advantageous to weigh under your opponent’s framing mechanism in addition to telling me why yours is better.

You can be as abusive as you want in arguments and observations. Fair warning, you might hit a few theory shells. I don't like plan affs, and will lower speaks, but you can run it.

No new args in the 2nr/2ar, please (common sense)

I will time, and when the timer goes off I’ll stop flowing so you talking longer than 10 seconds over serves no strategic purpose.

I am tech > truth and am a (mostly) tabula rasa judge

1. Theory

1.5 Trix (Read curry's paradox i love it ngl)

2. Larp and non-identity k

3. standard case

3.5 pomo phil

4. common Phil (kant, rawls, locke)

5. Identity arguments

Arguments I will not vote for (this list might get longer as time goes on)

-ableist/racist/sexist/transphobic/classist/violent arguments. To clarify, if I am judging a round where it comes down to a racist argument and a sexist argument, I will vote on presumption, not one of the two arguments.

If your opponent points out that your case defends or supports one of the above, you need to win that issue, or else I will not vote for that.

Please signpost along the way to make it easier.

Speaks

I think the method of giving speaks based on how far I'll think you'll go in the tourney is pretty dumb - however, higher speaks probably mean you're more likely to get to Elim rounds. Anyway, this is how I view speaks:

27: It was really bad/I couldn't understand you

28: It was ok/could be a lot better

29: It was decent/not bad/a little improvement but not terrible

30: Pretty good/good clash/impact calc

I don't really care enough to give like .1 speaks it will either be a whole number or end in 0.5 - i.e. like 29 or 29.5, but not 29.2 or 28.8. (If the debate was good, but I was triggered, I will give .9 purely to spite)

Ways to get free speaks (not free ballots)

1. Make a video game reference or do something funny and I'll bump your speaks. Or make jokes, idrc. Meme cases might probably not get a ballot from me (it sometimes has though), but depending on the case, probably a 29.5 or 30. If you run a spiritualism meme case, I will give you an automatic 30.

If you want me to clarify something about this paradigm please ask.

Credit to Zachary Li and Graham Johnstone for parts of the paradigm

Good luck, and have fun! (and win)

PF Paradigm

I think Hanming Sun summarizes all of my best points here when he says "i am a lay judge. speak slow."

Just a few things, extend in 3rd, really write my ballot on the 4th for me, and if ur a 2, bonus points if you hit every single part of their case.

Policy Paradigm

Signpost, if you don't know what it is, good luck my dude

Do some weighing, tell me why you win

If you don't know who Phoenix Pittman is and if he didn't get cancelled yet, ballot paint for me (write my ballot)

Honestly, policy sucks so just make the round fun and everyone will get good speaks ig, idrc

Try not to curse out your opponents ig, it's policy and i'd curse too

If you run a callout aff, ill give you max speaks

Spread lol i love spreading

NO MERCY

policy (+ ld)

_______

pref sheet?

1 - hard right affs/policy affs/k/k affs

2 - soft left (i think i really lean neg against this), topicality, impact turn debates, ld philosophy/tricks debates?

3 - lay (im fine with evaluating it anyway, but its kinda boring)

strike - morally abhorent args (absolutely zero tolerance for this)

did very well in many policy tourneys with my partner (a LONG time ago), mostly read big stick affs and ks while neg, especially pomo, afropessimism, settler colonialism, etc.

my ideal panel would be: jasmine stidham, chris randall, and hunter mcfarland. i would go for settler colonialism.

tldr, im agnostic on almost every single thing except for a couple things:

- tech>truth

- zero risk is not a thing. there is ALWAYS a risk of something. that means that presumption (and permissibility?) should also flow neg.

- ld tricks are fine to read. they amuse me and having watched a lot of ld rounds recently i might be the judge for eval'ing them.

- i do not evaluate DAs as a yes/no question. instead, i compare the probability of the link being true vs the probability of it not being true. for instance, if i think that the aff helps the economy like 60% but there's a 40% risk that they don't and haven't won a straight turn, then the impact of econ decline ow/s. if you tell me to eval it like a yes/no question, i certainly can. this is analogous to risk/zero risk framing.

- i think most hard right 2ars that go for the link turn + perm do need to win fw, since most of the link turn seems to be relying on the material consequences of the aff?? but then again why would you go for the link turn + perm if you're reading a policy aff?

- clipping/ev ethics = L 25, "isms" = L + lowest speaks + talk to tab

pf

__________

no clue how pf works these days, but if it is circuit, then all of the policy stuff applies. if you're lay, plz don't pref me for both of our sakes