Cathedral/St.Albans | Emory

—***Last time I debated was 2021, so I am a little rusty.

— I don’t really have a judging “philosophy” butdebate however you like, and I'll attempt to adapt to you - you can do everything/anything you want to do in front of me as long as it's clear, relatively slow (I won’t’ flow off a speech doc ever lol), and coherent. Feel free to ask me questions before round if you’re wondering my opinion & preflow ahead of time so we can get started. Thanks, and have fun.

she/her || kylie.berg@yale.edu || fairview ab '24

if you're short on time just read the prefs section!

background: i did four years of pf with my partner annika. we did quite well in colorado and okay on the circuit (toc gold x3 and nsda nats x3). as a recent grad i’ll make every effort to isolate any subconscious impressions of teams/schools from the way i judge (which i think is a pervasive problem, especially on the circuit).

if i’m judging you in colorado, don’t worry about reading this whole thing unless you want to. just have a smart, kind, fun debate. collapse and weigh as much as you can. don’t lie, i’m flowing and it's unbecoming.

if you bring me a piece of gum or a little snack i'll ascend to judge heaven (write an awesome ballot/feedback and maybe up your speaks a little) :)

i once read that tabula rasa is a myth, so the best thing a judge can do is articulate the ways in which they’re not tab — here's my effort to do so.

preferences:

• clarity > speed; assertion > aggression. make debate accessible and respectful. my personal threshold for speed is fairly high but i won’t flow off a doc. thus if you're actually spreading it’s unlikely that i’m flowing as well as you want me to.

• tech ≈ truth. in that the bar is much much lower for you to respond to a bad argument, but you still need to respond.

• clean collapses/weighing > going for everything. you're never winning everything and you don’t have to. going for every argument in the back half of round will spread you very thin and take time that could be spent on good weighing.

• your analysis > my intervention. the more you collapse and the more you weigh, the more uncertainty you squeeze out of my decisionmaking process. the more analytical work i have to do, the lower the chances you'll like my decision.

• strong evidence > strong analytics >>>> weak evidence > weak analytics >>>> no response.

• probability > magnitude. i default p > m on impact calc if a round comes down to it, feel free to convince me otherwise :)

• topical rounds >>> k debate >> theory. before running a k: 1. does it actually link? 2. can you explain it well? 3. is it cool and interesting? before running theory: was there in-round abuse? i feel that lots of claims/counterclaims in progressive debates are difficult to resolve without some level of intervention. btw disclo is always zzz i don't gaf about the wiki

• paraphrasing ≈ cut cards. if you’re paraphrased in CO, be able to pull up the card and what to ctrl+f for. if you’re paraphrased on the circuit, be able to pull up a cut card. if you can’t provide the evidence i drop the argument. if there's a compelling reason to think you lied about the evidence i drop the debater(s). lmk at the end of the round if you think your opponents lied and i'll call the cards/make a decision.

pf:

• frontline turns and as much defense as possible if you're speaking second, otherwise you've dropped their attacks and your paths to the ballot have narrowed considerably. this is a good norm that helps offset the massive advantage of speaking second.

• signpost often and extend cleanly, both your evidence and the warrant/implication. if you want me to vote on something make sure it's in both summary and final (maybe in the same order too!), make sure i know what ballot you're asking for.

• annika and i always did a heavily narrative-based style of debate. and so i am a sucker for good narrative debates. paint a picture of a world with the resolution and a world without - are we trading short-term economic prosperity for long-term generational damage to millions of americans? increasing the number of rags-to-riches stories at the expense of the middle-class masses? sacrificing quality of life the poorest communities to further enrich a wealthy minority? disguising a poverty trap as a progressive policy? tell me about it :)

ld:

• fw clash unfortunately often devolves into mid attacks like "my value pre-reqs theirs" or "my criterion links better into their value." i would be delighted to listen to some more substantive fw debates! if you and your opponent chose different words to encapsulate what’s functionally the same value, please skip the fw debate, don’t waste everyone’s time.

• fw is not a voting issue (obv), its a lens that i use to weigh your impacts. i know ld is all about phil and ethics but you still need impacts. impacts ≠ millions of deaths. they can be quantifiable, sliding scale, whatever you want, just weigh them well.

• i'll look for you to make a pointed decision about where you want the round to go with your 1ar, same with the 2nr (humongous amount of time to progress the fw debate, respond to the 1ar, decide where you want the round to go from there, and crystallise the debate down to some main issues). please give me voters at the end of the 2nr, and probably the whole 2ar (some time on fw at the beginning is ok). if you make the cleanest, coldest collapse mankind has ever seen in your last speech = things are looking good for you.

speaks:

• certainly the most subjective part of debate. usually <28 if you say something problematic or communicate very ineffectively, 28-29 if you deliver nice coherent speeches, >29 if you impress me, make me laugh, or bring me a snack.

Hi, I'm Alisha!! (she/her)

Email me before the round: abhattsmith23@concordcarlisle.org for any questions or concerns on my paradigm or anything I can do to make the round more comfortable/safe.

Overall (everyone must do this)

• Be nice to your partner and opponents. (no racism homophobia etc)

• You will be dropped if I see this happening.

• Ask your opponents before running progressive arguments (theory, k’s, etc) (unless it's trigger/content warnings then go for it)

• If you think there should be a content warning, there should be one with an anonymous opt-out form for everybody in the round.

If you are a novice:

• You rock!

• Debate can seem daunting at first. Just remember we are all here to learn from one another so please don’t be stressed and try to have some fun :)))

• If at any point during the round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, ask me.

• Weighing the easiest way you can win my ballot. Make sure, however, you are doing this comparatively.

• I don’t vote off of your crossfires. That doesn’t mean I’m not paying attention. If you have something to say about a crossfire, make sure you are bringing it up in a later speech so it goes on my flow.

• Collapse! I (and many other judges) do not evaluate rounds by counting how many things you bring up about the round. It simply is not a good use of your time. Pick your strongest arguments and extend the warrant and impact.

Mira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26

Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu

In high school I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an average career. I've competed in NPDA in college for 2 years, winning NPTE and a few other tournaments. I coached LD at James Logan and parli at Campolindo last year, and currently coach parli at Piedmont.

Public Forum

TL;DR: I'm a few years removed from the circuit so be aware that I may be unaware of newer norms. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and good weighing are musts. Respond to everything in 2nd rebuttal. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you.

Front-Half:

• Speed: Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in the first four speeches, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 300 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
• Evidence: While I paraphrased in HS, I'm not super proud of it. While I'm not a huge stickler for paraphrasing/reading cards, paraphrasing is a bad norm and I'm down to vote for paraphrasing theory if it's run correctly and won.
• Cross: I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech. If both teams agree, we can skip any crossfire and have 1 minute of prep as a substitute.
• Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything, not just turns. Advantages/disads are fine, 4 minutes is 4 minutes, but my threshold for responses will increase if you implicate them to their case. Blippy responses are tolerable but gross, I'd like it if you weighed your turns and your evidence when you introduce it.

Back-Half:

• Extensions: My threshold for extensions are very very very low. I think that extensions are a silly concept and uneducational (especially in PF). As long as you talk about the argument, it's considered extended. However, this doesn't mean that you can be blippy in the front half, and this doesn't mean that defense is sticky. Unless your opponents completely dropped their argument, dropped defense still needs to be mentioned at least briefly in summary.
• Weighing: Be as creative as you want, I hate judges that don't evaluate certain weighing mechanisms like probability and SOL. If 2 weighing mechanisms are brought up and both are equally responded to without any metaweighing, I'll default to whoever weighs first. If nobody weighs then I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).
• Final Focus: I know this is cliche, but the best way to win my ballot is by writing it for me. You're best off specifically explaining why your path to the ballot is cleaner than theirs rather than focusing on minuscule parts of the flow.

Progressive Debate:

• Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. For accessibility reasons, if no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs.
• Kritiks: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli (i.e. I still don't know if proper alts outside of "vote neg" are allowed in PF, a lot of rules around K's are cloudy for me). There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo.
• Tricks: I'm a fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. With that being said, if you're hitting an unexperienced team, my threshold for responses are low, but feel free to run tricks.

Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this in PF and it makes my ballot hard.

Other:

• I presume the team that lost the coin flip unless given a warrant otherwise. If there's no flip I'll presume the 1st speaking team
• Big fan of TKO's
• Big fan of content warnings
• Big fan of tag-teaming
• Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

• + 1 for disclosing on the wiki (show proof before the round)
• + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
• + 0.5 for a Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
• + 0.1 for every CX skipped
• + 0.1 for every swear word
• - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
• Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, CC good, wipeout, or any other fun impact turn
• Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
• Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without any prep time
• Instant 30's if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive

If I'm missing anything specific, feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

Parliamentary

TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round.

Case:

• Love it, I'm a case debater primarily.
• Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Tell me why your impact matters, go the extra step during prep.
• I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns.
• Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are. If 2 weighing mechanisms are equally competing with no metaweighing, I'll default to the first one read.
• I love lots of warranting.
• Go for turns.
• Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I'm pretty simple and am cool with anything.

Theory:

• Good with theory, probably the most comfortable with my decisions here.
• MG theory is good, but will listen to warrants otherwise. I probably won't vote for theory out of the block/PMR unless it's a super violent violation.
• I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
• I really don't understand the norm of no RVI's in parli. If a team runs theory on you, go for RVI's!!! I'm not an RVI hack but my PF background makes me want to see more RVI debates.
• Defaults: CI's > reasonability, DTA > DTD, text > spirit, potential abuse > actual abuse (but as with all defaults, win an argument on the flow and my mind changes)

Kritiks:

• While I'm totally cool with K's, I'm also not familiar with a lot of lit, esp some of the weird pomo authors, but at the same time I'll 100% vote for something I don't understand if you win it. When competing, I usually run Buddhism, Althusser, or some variation of cap, that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Any common K with a clear topical link should be fine though.
• Don't take the easy way out, write some non-generic links! This isn't necessary, but I feel more comfortable voting for a K with unique links to the topic.
• I feel a lot more comfortable judging K's vs. case/T-FW/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don't care what you run, that's where I'll feel most confident with my decision)

Other:

• If you take away one part of my paradigm it's this: I have a very low threshold for MO responses to the aff. I believe that all neg responses to case should be in the LOC, and while I'll evaluate responses read in the MO, I usually find myself erring aff.
• Speed is cool (top speed like 250-275 depending on how clear you are), but if I say slow and you don't slow then I'll stop flowing.
• Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
• I'll evaluate any cheaty CP unless someone runs a shell telling me it's bad.
• If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
• Tricks are good, but my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team.
• Condo's good, but you can convince me that condo's bad.
• Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
• Big fan of content warnings
• Big fan of tag-teaming
• Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.
• Collapse. Please.
• Flex is binding but needs to be brought up during speech for me to evaluate it.
• Repeat your texts or say them slowly please!

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

• + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
• + 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
• + 0.1 for every swear word
• - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
• Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
• Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
• Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without flex (if applicable)

As I'm writing this, I feel like I'm missing something, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

For LD/Policy:

I have literally zero policy experience and limited LD experience. I know enough to be a decent enough judge, but may be unaware with specific norms on the circuit. Check my parli paradigm for my general thoughts on things!

Quick Prefs:

1 - LARP

1 - Theory

3 - Tricks

3 - K v. Case/T-FW

4 - K v. K

5 (Strike) - Phil

He/Him, 3 years of pf for Blair

Debate however you want.

Add me to the chain: kaden.chien@gmail.com

Important: read a cw for stuff that needs it

Don't go too fast, but speed should normally be fine. Theory is ok. I'm worse at Ks and Trix so maybe dont run those on me.

I don't rly flow cross, but i'll kinda listen. If anything important happens bring it up later.

2nd rebuttal should frontline, dont read 50 disads pls.

Do weighing, explain why your weighing is better than theirs.

tldr :

he/him

first year out

read whatever

i love impact turn debates

tab

idk the topic

must frontline in second rebuttal

collapse pls

I like theory debate that is well thought out. Ill vote off anything, but I will be mad if you dont know what you are doing or are doing it really badly.

longer:

did pf for 4 years and world schools at nats, did alright

I debated pf pretty technically ig, lots of soft left affs. theory quite a bit as well and a few sec ks

understand the k, but go slower in later speeches to make sure i am flowing every extension necessary for u to win the round.

if its psychoanalysis or a complicated high theory argument, know that I am not familiar with the lit base, and explain the jargon being used or make it clear what it means in context of the theory

if ur gonna spread, be clear, I am not j reading off a speech doc

u have 2 mins to put a card on a preshared round doc (unless both teams want email chain only) and in this time neither team should be prepping

i hope all those anonymous accounts on the round doc are not being sus

i will disclose obv

do not just read arguments you don't understand copied from someone else

I generally disclosed and like disclosing, but I will obviously listen to disclosure theory like any other arguments

i dont really like paraphrasing but I am extremely receptive to theory arguments as to why it should/ should not be allowed

i think speaks r dumb and will generally give 29s for good debaters and 30s for really good

i think thats it for now

Email: ishraqhossain1738@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

Tech>Truth

Speed isn't an issue. Just make sure your voice is somewhat comprehendible.

Weighing is how you win. Comparative link weighing between arguments + reasons why your weighing should be preferred over your opponents is how you break clash and get my ballot.

Three-minute summaries mean defense is not sticky. Need consistency between summary and final focus.

I prefer substance rounds but I'm fine with theory(yes RVI's, default competing interps) I wouldn't trust myself to properly evaluate a K.

He/him pronouns.

I debated PF for 4 years. I'm a first-year out.

PF:

- Some speed is fine but whatever I don't understand I can't flow

- Not super familiar with theory so if you want to run it just be aware.

- Weighing wins your round, tell me exactly why your impacts matter more.

- Whatever was extended in final should've been in summary, no new weighing in final

- Unfortunately, tech over truth

- Be respectful of your opponents, pronouns etc.

LD:

I'm basically a novice.

Have fun!

Background

Hi!

I’m Rowan (he/him)- judge, Rowan, supreme overlord, and señor are all acceptable. Mr. Gray is my dad.

I started my career in PF for two years- first year was mostly on the local circuit and second year was mostly on the national. I had some moderate success, qualled to TOC, got some speaker awards. I ran mostly stock args but also ran a Jewish humor performance aff and prepared a Queer rage aff. However, since I ended my career in LD think of me as an LD judge. Most of the opinions I had about PF have changed since LD enlightened me.

I switched to LD my senior year where I was more successful- I full qualled and got some speaker awards, semid a tournament, and went 6-0 once. I was a K debater, focusing on East Asian litbases (specifically Daoism and Buddhism) but I also ran some cap and Quakerism (think baudrillard + oatmeal).

I’m down for pretty much any debate in any event. I’ve heard pretty much every argument and I know enough about debate to be able to evaluate most things.

People who have shaped the way I think about debate- Vishal Sivamani, Sean Wallace, James Song, Lukas Krause, Holden Budkowski, Anish Iyyavoo, Marshall Thompson, Bill Batterman, Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Jannat Verma

Guide to this paradigm

The first section applies to any event I judge. After that is my LD paradigm and finally is my PF paradigm.

General

Speed

I’ll clear you if I can’t understand you- after 3 clears I stop flowing. That said, I did nat circ LD so you can go pretty fast.

Send speech docs- always. If you don’t do it in LD I'll nuke your speaks.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategy. The better and more well-executed your strategy is the higher speaks you’ll get. Here’s a few things that will modify that.

If you’re being a jerk, I’ll nuke your speaks

If you don't cut your cards, I'll nuke your speaks

In irl rounds if you bring me food I’ll boost everyone’s speaks by 0.5

If ur a pfer that discloses on the wiki- lmk and I’ll give you 0.5

Content Warning Policy

Content warnings should be given for graphic explicit depictions of violence and/or self harm– ie the kind of performances some antiblackness/queer theory affs use.

IF you don’t provide a CW to these things I will nuke your speaks and if your opponent reaches out to me and tells me that you’ve made them uncomfortable I will drop you with zero speaks (if this is you please reach out through contact information, I’ll keep everything anonymous)

I genuinely think it’s kinda funny that PFers are running theory on people saying the words ‘sex trafficking’. That said, if you wanna exploit my tolerance for questionable arguments and have an opponent who’s so incompetent that they lose on the flow then feel free.

Misc

I disclose every time, even when the tournament bars me from doing so.

Please post round me. I want you to understand my decision and if it was a bad decision I want to understand why it was bad.

If I screw you because I overestimate or underestimate my judging capabilities, please contact me after the round or postround me to change my paradigm

Flex prep is always good

L20s

Any bigotry at all

If you straight up lie about what your evidence says *not misinterpret, lie

Contact Info

Hit me up on facebook with any questions and add me to the email chain

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011539506658

rowan.a.gray@gmail.com

LD Paradigm

My pref sheet is a mixture of how competent I am and how much I like the arguments

These Ks-(cap/setcol/sec/edelman/apess/semiocap/psych/mollow/racial capitalism/weheliye/buddhism/daoism)/Deleuzian Stuffs/Performance- 1

Larp/Theory/Other Ks-2

Actual Phil- 4/5

Trix-S

My favorite debates to watch are KvK but please don’t change your style if that isn’t you. I’d much rather watch a decent larp round than a bad KvK round

Defaults: comparative world, reasonability, no rvis, presume neg

I'm impartial on T vs k affs. Hard to say whether I err one side or the other since t debates vs different affs can and should be very different

PF Paradigm

This event is kinda cringe lol- please try to make the rounds interesting for me or I might fall asleep

Anything you don’t frontline in second rebuttal is conceded

No new rebuttals in 1s

No new rebuttals or frontlines in 2s

Defense isn’t sticky now that summary is 3 minutes

I’ll give you 1 minute to find a card, after which I won’t evaluate it

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I have just finished debating APDA at Brown. After graduating, I will be coaching PF and Policy debate in Taiwan on a Fulbright. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable, have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Charles Oliveira da Silva^[1](born 17 October 1989) is a Brazilian professionalmixed martial artist^[5]and fourth degree black beltBrazilian jiu-jitsu practitioner.^[a]

Oliveira started training Brazilian jiu-jitsu in his youth, achieving multiple championship titles before transitioning to MMA in 2007.^[5][8]Oliveira currently competes in theLightweight division of theUltimate Fighting Championship (UFC), where he is the formerUFC Lightweight Champion. Oliveira holds multiple UFC records, notably themost submission wins in the organization's history at 16,most finishes at 20 andmost bonuses at 19.^[9][10]

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

Hi, my name is Ashley and I am a rising senior. I've competed in traditional LD. I've competed at the state-level tournament as well as NSDA nationals for World Schools Debate.

I can handle speed in a traditional sense but would prefer that you refrain from spreading. I have no progressive experience but I understand the basic structure of it and will do my best to evaluate it if it is brought up in rounds. I will understand LARP debate best but please make sure that your links to terminal impacts are clear. 

Speaker points are fairly subjective and I understand that low speaker points can be especially harmful for breaks so I mostly will give "high" speaker points.

I will vote on who can uphold the value/value criterion better, who can make more logical arguments, and who can demonstrate that their side is more "important" (weighing in a sense).

Cheesy as it sounds, have fun, and I am so excited to judge y'all!

Hello!

My name is Prasanna Kumbhare and I am honored to be your judge for this round! I am a flay judge, so I would prefer for the debaters to speak at a slow and understandable pace. At the end of the day, I will be voting for the side that weighs more heavily on the more impactful topic (lives, rights, etc..) Cards should not take more than 1 minute to find. If cards take too long to find, we might as well continue on with the debate. I do care about time, so make sure that you start your last sentence at the beginning of the grace period. However, I will not be timing. I leave that responsibility to yourself and your opponents so that I can worry about the flow. Speaking will affect my decision. The better you speak, the better your chances are for winning the round. And lastly, please at your Final Focus and Summaries weigh as much as possible and give me voters (especially in Final Focus) as it helps me finalize my decision.

Thank you and happy debating! Good luck!

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

He/Him carsonmichel69@gmail.com

I debated Nat. Circuit PF for Bronx Science for four years. Now at Columbia.

Tech > Truth

Couple of things:

I'm fine with pretty fast speeds, if it's too fast then I will ask for a speech doc. Spreading not so much.

I like warranting. If you assert something and don't give me a reason for it, then it essentially means nothing. This applies to literally everything in the round. Warranted Analytics > Unwarranted Cards.

Please weigh big bro ????????????

You must frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky, in summary you must extend even conceded defense & do the same in final.

I pay very little attention to crossfire and probably will be on my phone during it, so if something important is said/conceded just bring it up in a later speech.

No new info in final. New implications off of stuff already read is chill.

Please read content warnings. If you have even a shadow of a doubt as to whether you should or not, always air on the side of caution, we want debate to be a safe space.

Please be respectful in cross!

Progressive Stuff:

Theory: Only read if there is a genuine violation/norm you care about. Friv theory is stupid theory and you know it.

K's are very cool! Run them however you want about whatever you want. Respond however you want T, KvK, idc, etc.

I will say however that I hate the 'academiazation' of critical arguments into a very rigid and complex structure. In the words of Noam Chomsky who, although is talking about philosophy, exclaims in a way I think K's today can often be described as which is “a way of insulating sectors of a kind of radical intelligentsia from popular movements and actual activism..." I find it ironic when a K calls for an upheaval of some preexisting flawed structure, and then literally is spread in the format of some jargon-y preexisting flawed structure.

Tricks are not debate. They never will be. Don't read that sht in front of me.

What this means is that I don't think K's have to be structured like: Theory of Power, Impact, Alt, FW, etc. I think they can read in whatever structure they want to be, that if anything makes the K stronger.

If you genuinely do care about this argumentation you would want the average person to be able to engage and in a meaningful way. Don't get lost in the sauce.

And FINALLY:

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc I will stop the round, probably call you a terrible human being, immediately drop you, and make sure to slaughter your speaks.

Have fun! Bonus speaks if you say "I'm sorry thats just cap" in a SPEECH, or if you make a strong effort to cite non-western authors (I am sick of your Reuters and Carnegie Endowment evidence) especially on foreign policy resolutions.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

I will evaluate all arguments and base my decision on what you extend into your final speeches.

I'm good for all policy arguments and kritiks that disprove the affirmative with links to the plan or its justifications. I’m less comfortable with non-Kantian philosophy positions, but I’ll do my best. I’m not a fan of theory or tricks.

I’m convinced by reasonability against most theory shells, but you need a counter-interpretation.

I tend to read a lot of evidence, so prioritizing reading high-quality evidence will serve you well.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent about what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of your positions and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

Standard FLAY Judge; I competed in Public Forum and World Schools Debate for Boston Latin for 6 years.

TLDR: Warrant + Weigh = Win

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag-not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop for judges : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, if you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

**My partner and I made it our mission to run environmental arguments on every topic in our senior year. That being said, I'd look favorably upon climate change related impacts and links, if ran well.

**Regarding progressive args, I'm not very well versed in them so run them at your own risk. The likelihood of me voting for K's, t shells and theory shells etc. are low simply because I'm not familiar with them. If there's actual abuse in the round, just explain it in paragraph form or put it in a way that I would be able to easily follow.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask or reach me at cinly.mo@columbia.edu

Good luck, have fun, and learn things!

email: prateek.motagi@stern.nyu.edu

ask me anything before round

tldr: run whatever, explain it, win

• Tech>Truth. I'll vote off ANYTHING extended cleanly on the flow. Love impact turns. Ngl idk much about prog

• Tell me if you're in the bubble, and I'll give you 30s

• If there is a lay or a flay on the panel, kick me

• Speed is chill

henrynomeland@gmail.com

I look at the chain to check evidence. I won't be flowing off of a doc.

Debated circuit PF for Lakeville. I study Statistics at UW-Madison. Briefly did instructing/coaching after High School.

UPDATED FOR TOC 2024

I haven't thought a lot about debate since around 2021 so keep that in mind.

PLEASE be chill and nice to everyone in crossfire and during speeches.

I flow extensions and care about them being good.

Have cards. Avoid going for multiple case arguments in summary. Have your evidence ready to be sent I'm fed up with ridiculously long evidence exchanges.

My favorite arguments are relatively niche, relatively small impact scenarios concerning interest groups that get less attention in most debates.

I evaluate arguments and not the labels of arguments. Pointing out that your opponent's responses don't use the jargon and preconceived frameworks that you're anticipating them to use isn't going to win my ballot.

Voting where debaters tell me to vote >>> Voting where I personally think you messed up

I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes.

If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing. If there's no clash and no weighing I will be sad.

Prog Stuff

I would seriously prefer to judge a substance round. I don't understand postmodernism, philosophy, and the state of debate discourse over the past three years nearly well enough to judge these issues as accurately as many other judges. This being said,I will vote for reasonable arguments that you win and weigh. I debated theory a lot more than Ks when I was in debate. Frivolous theory, truth testing, and tricks are bad and my threshold for responses is low. In particularly egregious cases I will simply not vote for arguments along these lines, even if they survive to final focus.

Other Stuff

These people taught me debate:

Maddie Cook

Bryce Piotrowski

Gus Gerlach

I reserve the right to drop you for making the space unsafe.

I also reserve the right to drop you for blatantly violating NSDA or tournament rules (there are probably rules that are bad, I promise I won't arbitrarily enforce bad rules or trivial technicalities). Fabricating or egregiously misrepresenting evidence is basically always an instant loss.

robertou@umich.edu -- Send out the 1AC before the round if possible.

My pairing on the tabroom will cause a decision that a team will dislike. Therefore I will do my best to outline when I will intervene, but in general hope to practice non-intervention because debaters work hard and judges should not rob them of that work by intervening.

I'm equally bad for the aff and neg in evaluating T-USFG debates. If I'am judging these debates debate technically then pray. Barely better for KvK debate.

Not knowledgeable on critical literature, mostly read policy arguments. Not prejudiced against kritiks that utilize a framework to moot the case. I will decide the FW debate in favor of one side’s interpretation, and not arbitrarily decide a middle ground.

I instinctually make weird facial expressions during debates, sorry in advance I'm trying to minimize them when I judge. They do mean something but part of debate is judge adaptation including not overadapting.

I'm very receptive to new 1AR arguments bad, but it is up to debaters to call out new arguments, I'll only intervene in the 2AR, though sometimes they are inevitable/necessary to resolve a late-breaking debate which is the 2Ns fault.

I will not:

-open the speech doc/docs until the debate ends---include evidence insertions in your card doc and I'll figure out if I will evaluate them or not based on the debating in-round.

-read evidence unless it's referenced by name in the 2NR/2AR.

-evaluate ethics challenges in an offense-defense manner, only based on personal belief.

-evaluate death good if the other team said don't read death good in the pre-round/wiki.

Defaults---easily swayed by in-round debating:

Hedonistic Util is good.

No Judge Kick.

Presumption affirms.

Reject the arg if applicable.

Zero risk requires a technical concession.

T>FWK>Condo/Perf Con>everything else.

Wikis:

https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda24/Michigan/AuOu

https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy23/SanAngeloCentral
https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy22/Westwood
https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy21/Westwood

Speaks will be higher if you:

-send out the 1AC before the round.

-are chill/kind.

-are the only team from your school at the tournament---tell me if this is true.

-have a well updated/pretty wiki. The more pretty/well-updated the higher your speaks---tell me if you think your wiki meets these criteria.

Extra:

I'am decently knowledgeable on and enjoy, complicated counterplan competition debates.

Hi,

I am not an experienced PF judge. I am mostly a lay judge meaning that eloquence and speaking skill will have as much of an effect as your evidence, though if it comes down to it, evidence will have a bigger impact.

Decision making:

I may or may not flow, but please go in order. I will look for who has won arguments-wise, or I will go by who has better proved the standard (based on who has provided one). I will particularly be looking at weighing impacts. Personally, I find weighing impact super important, so please do that. My expectation for each part of the debate has been posted below

First Speaker Speech

- Pretty Standard, I'd rather you not spread.

- You have fifteen seconds to finish your speech after your time is up

All Crossfires

- Ask actual questions

- If your question is related to cards or sources, just check the card in Prep, don't ask them to read it out loud.

Summary

- 3 minutes long

- I will pay special attention to this speech; use it well!!!

- Weigh, Weigh, and Weigh! If your opponents don't weigh, and you do weigh, you will automatically be put up in my decision making for the round.

Final Focus

- 2 minutes long

- Anything you mention in this speech I will consider in my decision, so if you had something important, bring it up again here

- Like summary, Weigh!!!

- This will be the most important speech for me.

Prep time

- 3 minutes

- You can ask for cards here

Sources

- If I find your sources fishy or suspicious, I will check them

- If I catch you with fake sources, you will lose the round

- Don't search anything up during the debate

- Don't make things up during the debate

Speaker Points / Cheating

- Being formal and good etiquette will win you some speaker points

- If you get heating up or start yelling you will lose speaker points

- There is a fine line between provoking and straight-up bullying

- If you cheat in any way, You will get a significant deduction in speaker points.

- I will not tolerate, sexual, racial, or offensive statements of any manner.

- Any offensive comments will not only cause you to lose the round, but I will also report you to the tournament officials or tabroom.

Good luck with it and have fun with the debate!

*Any other information I bring up at the start of the debate is included in my paradigm.

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.

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

1. Theory (but not stupid and friv)
2. Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
3. Framing / Meta Weighing
4. I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
5. Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

• I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
• I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

• If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
• Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

Sidwell '23, Dartmouth '27.

Please put me on the chain - s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com.

Debate should be fun for everyone. If I can help you in any way when it comes to your comfort or safety in the round, let me know.

OV:

1. Not sure how much I will be judging, but I know next to nothing about IPP - my sole contribution to the DDI this year was a 30 minute Kant lecture.

2. I will not open docs until after the debate ends.

3. I am best for teams that, in the 2NR/2AR, tell a cohesive and pretty story about the technical debating that has occurred.

Cards serve as a tiebreaker for technical debating on a particular argument - if I can reach a decision without reading the docs, I will.

Try or die framing is not very persuasive to me. I evaluate relative risk of advantage vs disadvantage. The risk of the advantage linearly decreases with the risk of solvency.

I will almost certainly not reject the team for anything other than conditionality.

Historically, I'm pretty good for the aff on competition/theory vs process. I try my best to overcome this bias but it is certainly one that I have - be warned.

Planless affs:

I think T debates are very fun. I usually vote affirmative either when the negative mishandles something like "unfairness inevitable", or the aff wins sufficient defense to neg debatability offense such that a K of the reading/imposition of T outweighs. I don't think I am great for the aff for "x outweighs debatability" in a vacuum, without any defense.

I am a big fan of 2ACs that hide Ks of T on every flow and blow them up in the 1AR.

I can't imagine a 2AR that convinces me to vote on "they flipped neg to read T and that's bad." It's a logical criticism of a non-topical affirmative.

K:

I generally vote negative when the neg wins a framework argument and a link that outweighs aff link turns.

I really enjoy topic Ks that utilize framework arguments that emphasize the importance of how we do research.

I am very bad for Ks that rely on the logic of cause and effect - if links are non-unique, it makes no sense to attempt to attempt to garner offense from a unique consequence of the plan. For example, "the plan is capitalist, capitalism causes extinction, therefore the plan causes extinction" is nonsensical, but variations on it appear in a shocking amount of 2NRs! Similarly, I don't think I have ever given a decision that included the phrase "the alt solves the case."

"Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me."

Misc:

I have a tendency to talk a lot in the post round for debates that involve theory/philosophy that I am interested in - especially psychoanalysis. If you need to leave or don't want to listen to me, feel free to tell me you need to leave or to hurry up - I won't be offended!

Feel free to ask/email me about debating at Dartmouth/in college.

Flow judge

4 years PF at Leland

he/him

PF:

-Put me on the email chain: dxie18@gmail.com

-Frontline in second rebuttal

-Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in both summary and final focus

-Weigh comparatively -- don't just say your impact is important, show why it's more important than your opponent's

-Give warrants. Don't just read statistics with no reasoning or warranting.

-Terminal defense > Weighing. make sure you at least access your impact in some way before weighing it

-Metaweigh, otherwise I'll probably just default to prereq/short circuit > link-in > everything else or evaluate based on mitigatory defense/whatever feels intuitive

-I don't like DAs that don't interact with the case at all but I'll evaluate them reluctantly

-Misconstrued evidence won't be evaluated and you'll probably lose speaks

-I really really prefer that you don't spread. I don't like flowing off a doc. I will evaluate spreading if you give me a doc but I'd rather not have to.

-Please time yourself.

-Tech > Truth. I'll vote on anything but keep in mind that crazy arguments that don't make a lot of sense are a lot easier for your opponents to respond to

-Don't be problematic

-I don't flow cross and won't vote on it. If something important happens in cross, it must be mentioned in speech for it to be on my flow.

-I don't like calling for cards. I will try to avoid calling for cards. MAKE MY JOB EASY, do the indicting and the evidence comparison in your speech. I will always try to evaluate evidence clashes solely based on what is said in the round, me calling for evidence should be the last last resort if I can't break a clash.

-If you want to concede defense to kick out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read, you should also explain why the defense takes out the turn

Progressive Arguments

-Theory and Ks: I'm not too familiar with them, especially Ks, but you can run them (sorry if I make the wrong decision though). I don't like friv theory but I won't hack against it

-No CPs/Tricks

Not PF:

-frontline in the speech after responses are made

-warrants please

PF for 4 years at Bronx Science (Bronx Science MY), have been coaching a few teams since graduating, sophomore at Cornell

TLDR: tech; pls warrant; without solid comparative weighing, my ballot normally comes down to the least mitigated link first and then the largest impact--at least be good at frontlining if you can't weigh

[FOR VBI/SEPTOBER]be careful about the rhetoric you use for this topic -- it matters more than you think and I won't hesitate to stop the round. This includes using terminology such as "illegals" or "aliens" to refer to undocumented immigrants/immigration.

general:

"Fast PF speed" is fine - faster then 220wpm is when I start to have issues. Spread at your own risk bc tbh I suck at flowing off speech docs and will probably make a worse decision and be annoyed if you make me do so

I hate blippy weighing without warrants. Don't just say "I outweigh on timeframe" tell me why, make it comparative, and implicate it on the flow

Link in's need weighing on top of them or else they just function as a piece of non-comparative offense

You need full extensions. no questions asked, and dont forget the internal link!

Extend warrants, not card names. chances are if you just say "extend John 19" I won't remember what John said and I won't flow it

If you want me to vote on an Impact turn or rebuttal disad/adv it also need to have an impact and be weighed

more teams should be reading analytics in rebuttal, warranted analytic > unwarrated ev ANYDAY

I won't listen to cross unless someone says smth funny, then I'll tune in

I vote on the flow and obviously won't eval new args, but It is equally YOUR burden to call out when technical 'abuses' happens

not having actual cut cards on hand = .5 drop in speaks

my rant about "probability" weighing
most probability weighing just isn't real weighing- any conceded defense or argument is 100% true, at that point any of ur probability weighing is just some sort of defense 'in disguise' so just implicate it as that instead and do it in rebuttal. If you read "probability weighing" but its just new defense in summary or final I am docking ur speaks and will be rly sad. I say most because I'll sometimes consider evaluating probability analysis as weighing if it's comparative--- ie if you compare the extent of your actor's capacity or incentive to carry out a certain argument as a way to prefer one over another almost as if it is warrant comparison. pls feel free to ask me more about my thoughts on this i like talking about it!

non-subs debate
I'm comfy eval-ing any shell or K (but ideally keep K's under 950 cuz i hate flowing on docs), no bias on disclo on para but FYI I disclosed and paraphrased up until senior year, NO TRIX!!

fun
if u make me genuinely laugh out loud I will be happy and boost ur speaks; if ur joke flops L i guess

most importantly, have fun! let me know how I can accommodate you in round in any way

Coaching Conflicts:Bergen County Academies CM & LS, Awty ZZ, Interlake WZ, Summit GM

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD, bit of policy/congress), JHU '25 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when you're out of prep time.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. I'm aware of what I know and don't know, don't tell me in your speeches.
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.)
3. I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
4. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).