Debate/Judging experience:

I debated, coached, and judged tournaments in China for the past three years.

Judging preferences:

I want to believe that debating is all about effective communication, I would appreciate speeches that are crafted, mechanized, emphasized and purposeful. Exchanges can get intense, but teams still need to see their opponent and contribute to moving the debate forward. The use of evidence can benefit one's case as long as it's been explained and impacted at that specific moment, I wouldn't be able to credit one underdeveloped evidence even though it's awesome.

Hey, this is Brenda!

I am an engineering professional with strong interests in judging. I have over 3 years experience in judging. I enjoy debates that flow well and have distinct framework as this makes the debate well structured. I believe logic and evidence go hand in hand and well thought through debate. Moderate speaking pace, clear speech and confidence is what wins!

My Pronouns are They/Them/He/Him

Put me on the email chain: shaohan.zhou.2016@gmail.com

Framework:

My perspective as a PF debater tends to focus on quantifiable impact analysis, but I also buy egalitarian analysis as a framework and critiques if you put them in the right schema, a good analysis around structural violence/inequality/capitalism/libertarianism/neoliberalism/accelerationism might earn you a win against a huge amount of statistical evidence.

If there's no framework debate at all, I will follow default cost-benefit analysis on quantifiable impact, if both sides failed to access any quantification, I will then evaluate link quality>general performance>emotional appeal(it should be noted that I don't often buy seemingly exaggerated impact like human extinction, nuclear WW3, world doom unless you can access a good amount of probability cards) I'd also take feasibility into consideration even if it's a should-no-would resolution, basic supply-demand statistics /empirical successful examples should do just fine for that.

Speed:

Spreading NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I can easily handle speed over 1000 words/4 min from my empirical experience(I once went for 1200 words case in a major final and lost) I think the vast majority of PF speakers wouldn't go over this limit whatsoever, so unless you are a well-versed CS-Spreader I believe I can understand your fastest pace possible, but still remember this: speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST!!!!

Crossfires:

I appreciate respectful, peaceful, and fruitful crossfires, I flow BOTH crossfires and speeches, major evidence, especially data mentioned anew in cross should be re-emphasized in later speeches. Yelling and abusive behaviour will lead to speaker points deduction, but rudeness would not be a major RFD on my ballot at the end of the day.

For Online Events, I'd like to remind you again that normally conference Apps like ZOOM have automatic main voice detection, which means when multiple debaters try to talk simultaneously, one of them(normally the loudest one of all) would be emphasized and others weakened, so as basic decency I'd like to ask you to keep Q/A brief and productive because it's relatively hard to interrupt in online sessions, save some time for opponents to respond. Don't start making Speech/reading cards in Cross!

In short, have the basic decency of keeping things lean and saving time for each other.

Front-lining:

I do NOT require rebuttal speakers on the second speaking team to frontline opponents' rebuttal speech! Of course, it's appreciated if your time permits, but I would value direct responses and quality of rebuttal over front-lining against your opponents' rebuttal, that could be picked up in summary(AKA I would NOT just consider it dropped until after Grand Cross, don't try to sell me "any turns left unresponded in 2nd rebuttal are 100% conceded arguments", I will take responses from summary into consideration)

Summary and Final Focus:

No NEW arguments in final focus, summary should cover ALL voting issues about to be mentioned in the final focus. Do not just bring up "dropped argument" in final focus if it's only mentioned once in your case and was not picked up in your summary to point out opponents didn't respond to them etc. I appreciate impact analysis based on quantifiable evidence, in summary, you should try to keep the consistency of using good data and try not to get into sheer logical explanation/emotional appeal.

Critiques:

Simple standard: 1. alternative better than original plan 2. alternative mutually exclusive with the original plan, if both criteria suffice on a scientific basis, I will buy your critiques with high speaker points. But I would also accept offenses about counterplan not allowed in PF debate, however would not be a major contributor to my RFD. (Focus on Framework if Alt is absent, FW standard mentioned above.

Theory, and everything alike:

NO, you can try reading those, and I will still judge on my flow, but also still based on my usual standard mentioned above.

If you have any questions whatsoever, don't feel afraid to ask

Hello!! I'm Alan, a debater/judge/student with around 6 years of public forum experience. I've judged some tournaments, yet I am unfamiliar with the topic this time and do not have much experience with the style of U.S. circuit debaters. Please be polite, don't spread and be clear with your speeches.

Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!

How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?
Defining the topic helps provide clarity about what the debate will focus on. It ensures that all
participants understand the subject matter and avoid unnecessary tangents or confusion. Clearly defining the topic ensures that all participants have an equal understanding of what is being discussed, preventing any unfair advantages or misunderstandings.
How important is the framework to your decision making?
Having a solid framework is essential for navigating through the exchange of ideas, supporting positions with evidence, and ultimately influencing my decision as a judge. It provides a roadmap for constructing and delivering compelling arguments, contributing significantly to the overall effectiveness of the debate.
How important is the crossfire in your decision making?
In a debate, crossfire is crucial in my decision-making because it allows for direct communication between participants, which makes it easier to clarify points, offer rebuttals, and assess flexibility and critical thinking abilities in real time. This stage provides the opportunity to refute the arguments of opponents while also requiring quick thinking to fill in any holes or weaknesses in the arguments. Crucially, a debater's performance during crossfire influences my perceptions, impacting the debater's position's overall credibility and persuasiveness. This, in turn, has a significant effect on the decision-making process regarding the strength and conviction of arguments presented.
How important is weighing in your decision making?
Argument weighing, which entails comparing and evaluating arguments according to their persuasiveness, quality, and relevance, is a crucial aspect of decision-making during a debate. Debaters can distinguish between important points, rank the strongest arguments, and successfully respond to counterarguments by using this technique. Argument weighing guides me as a judge in determining the most compelling and convincing side of the debate, influencing the final decision regarding the debate's resolution by assessing the strength of evidence, logical reasoning, and relevance to the topic.
How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
Persuasive speaking and nonverbal communication are crucial in debate decision-making because they have a significant impact on the delivery and reception of arguments. Persuasive speaking improves the persuasiveness and memorability of arguments through powerful rhetoric and skillful language use, which affects how I evaluate the strength of a debater's position. Simultaneously, nonverbal communication, which includes body language, gestures, and demeanor, supplements verbal arguments by conveying confidence, credibility, and sincerity, ultimately shaping decision-makers' perceptions and having a significant impact on the overall evaluation of the debate's outcome.
How fast should students speak?
Students should generally speak clearly and at a pace that is understandable to the other participants in a debate. Even at faster speaking rates, it's critical to preserve coherence and clarity in debate formats that may promote it. The secret is to effectively communicate arguments without compromising their clarity. Students should strive to speak at a speed that will enable them to interact with their opponents, support their arguments, and make themselves understood by the judge. In order to communicate effectively during a debate, one must strike a balance between speed, articulation and clarity

I have a lot of experience judging Public Forum debates, having served as judge since 2016.

I tend to focus on the clashes in a debate, and it would be great if debaters could weigh their contentions against their opponents'. The ability to point out flaws in the opponents' logic is another thing I look for in debaters.

I have been engaged in public forum debate as a judge since 2016 and had been invited back to judge ever since.

In a debate, I believe comparison is a good way to show impacts to judges on top of the basics of logic, evidence, and connections.

I noticed some debaters tend to be fast talking in a debate. Personally I think is fine as long as words are clearly spoken. Speaking is about making yourself heard.

I also noticed some debaters tend to be aggressive in the debate. An appropriate degree but not too much of aggressiveness is helpful to win yourself more chances to present your case and ideas.

In terms of determining winner in a debate, I usually determine the winner by first comparing the impacts they present, and second looking at the logic and evidence as well as the connections of these to their case.

Last but not the least. Debate time is limited, therefore it’s best to focus on what’s important and deliver as much as you can and drop off those that are not so important i.g. arguing that opponents speak too much and didn’t let you speak.

Hi, this is Jamie. I'm currently studying Business and Finance / Social Science at NYU Shanghai. I was a debater in high school and now I am a professional referee and coach. I judge nearly 300 PF debates on average every year and have rich experience in debate judging. Here's my Paradigm:

1. The standard for my decision of the debate

(1) RFD

I. My criterion for judging the outcome of the debate is completely based on the number of clash points won by both sides, which has nothing to do with the debaters' own English level or preparation level. I will never insert any subjective or intellectual background into the final decision.

II. Clash points that can be credited to my RFD must meet the following conditions: This point needs to be elaborated on and discussed by the debaters before the summary speech, then summarized in the summary speech, and finally given the practical significance of the clash point in the final focus.

III. In the case that both sides have won the same amount of clash points, I will select the point that the debaters of the two sides spend the most time discussing in the whole debate, while this point is the most important clash point in the debate for me. The debate is won by whichever side wins the most important clash point.

(2) Speaker point

My scoring criteria will change depending on the requirements for judges in different tournaments. However, my personal speaker point criterion is:

24 means that the debater can barely complete the debate without any bad behavior; 25 means that the debater has finished the debate fluently, but there were no highlights; 26 is my average score, which means that the debater has not only completed the debate but also provided some good arguments; 27 means that the debater has given a lot of good ideas throughout the debate and overall did a good job; 28 means I think the debater is one of the best debaters in the tournament; 29 means that I think the debater is capable of winning a tournament outside the United States; 30 means I think the debater can win the tournament in America.

To be more specific: I give the debaters' scores mainly on the basis of their logical ability, English level, delivery, structure, preparation level, and politeness.

I. Logical ability: The logical ability of debaters is mainly reflected in their obvious logical errors in their arguments. It is important to note that even if the debater makes a logical error and the opponent does not point it out, I will still reduce the debater's speaker point without affecting the outcome of the debate.

II. English level: English ability is the basis of PF debate. If the speaker's English is obviously insufficient, I will consider subtracting the debater's speaker point. On the contrary, if the debater's English is extremely outstanding, I will increase the speaker point of the debater.

III. Delivery: Outstanding English ability does not mean that the delivery is clear enough. I have met many debaters who are very good at English, but they cannot express their logic clearly because they read the manuscript too fast. If the debater makes me think that his/her articulation is not clear enough, no matter how good the debater's English is, I will consider reducing their speaker point.

IV. Structure: Generally speaking, the debaters have a very elaborate construction in their constructive speech. However, I am more interested in whether the debater can maintain a high level of structure in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. A good structure will greatly help the delivery of the debater. I will also award the debater for their excellent structure by raising their speaker points.

V. Preparation level: The degree of preparation is mainly reflected in two aspects: A. whether the debater has a sufficient understanding of the important arguments in the topic; B. Whether the debater prepares citations and quotations for each argument he/she uses.

VI: Politeness: Politeness and respect are also important parts of the debate. If one of the debaters clearly disrespects the opponent or does something impolite, such as verbally abusing the opponent, then I would give a speaker point below 24 without hesitation.

2. Specific elaboration of different parts of the debate

(1) Constructive: I don't care if the speaker reads or recites the constructive speech. As long as the speaker speaks clearly and fluently in an orderly manner, I think it's a qualified constructive speech. I hope I can clearly hear the claim, warrant, and impact of each contention. Also, if the debater clearly does not perform well in the constructive speech, I would definitely give him/her a low speaker point, because writing a case is supposed to be a part of being fully prepared in advance, with very little improvisation needed in the debate.

(2) Rebuttal: I admit that the debater can prepare a lot of blocks ahead of time for rebuttal. However, I still don't want the debater to become a pure "reader" in the rebuttal, just "reading" what he or she has prepared. Improvising is very important. In addition, I hope all 2nd speakers can listen to their opponents' cases carefully and not drop any ideas easily. Finally, I allow debaters to extend their own case at the end of the rebuttal, but only after completing the counterattack against their opponent's case. If the 2nd speaker does not make any rebuttal but just simply repeats their own contentions, I will not make any flow and reflect any of the content in my RFD.

(3) Summary: The summary is what I think is the most difficult part of the whole debate. I expect the debaters to freestyle more in the summary and "summarize" the previous 20 minutes rather than choose to read their own blocks or cases repeatedly. I would not accept any new arguments in the summary. Finally, I accept a small amount of rebuttal in the summary, but I do not expect to hear another 3-min long rebuttal speech.

(4) Final Focus: I can accept that the structure and content of the final focus and the summary are generally the same, but they can never be exactly the same. The final focus should emphasize the realistic impact of each clash point.

(5) Crossfire: I can make it very clear to all debaters that what you discuss in the crossfire will not be more than 5% of my RFD as a whole. That's not to say I don't think the crossfire is important, or that I won't do flow for the crossfire. I insist: that all key information mentioned in the crossfire needs to be re-addressed in the following speeches. If the debater merely mentions a point in the crossfire, the point will not be valid.

(6) Prep time: I don't have a preference for the way debaters use their preparation time. I only care about two aspects: first, if the debaters spend a lot of preparation time before a certain speech and their performance in the speech is very poor, I will question whether the debaters really make good use of the preparation time and consider reducing their speaker points. Second, if the debater does not use preparation time at all and appears unprepared for the following speech by speaking inarticulately. I would think that the debater is too arrogant to use his own preparation time. I would also lower his/her speaker points.

(7) Checking card: I have no preference for the number and time of the debater's checking cards. The debater can check the cards at will within the scope permitted by the rules. I focus only on one point: Does the debater address after checking the cards? If the debater doesn't follow up at all after checking the cards, I think the debater is wasting everyone's time. Therefore, I will reduce the speaker points of the debater.

Thank you for your patience. That's all of my paradigms.

Please try to focus on the effeciency of your outputs,pay attention to the following aspects.

A.Specificity.Judges cannot always fully understand your points,so try to balance your output and specificity.Making judge fully understand your strongest statements is the most important.

B.Emphasis.Judges cannot always flow or remember all you mentioned,appropriate emphasis on winning issues like key rebuttals,evidence,statistics etc. will help a lot.

C.Stress.It is easy to get lost or miss the important information if your voice is monotonous.

Please pay attention to emphasize the importance and give explicit weighings

A.Emphasis on importance.Proving something true isnt the end,instead,only telling judges the importance of the matters ,can we realize how important it is,and how urgent it is,which help to fully realize these points.

B.Weighing.Without explict weighings,especially in arguments about opportunity cost.it is easy to waver if debaters dont tell judge why A outweighs B.Please pay attention to making sure that you win in weighing.

If you speak too fast or uncivil,you will lose me,

If you have great engagement ,focus on logic and are passionate,it will help you stand out!

So,overally,I vote by

A.how many clashes you win.

B.whether you can use fewer clashes to successfully weigh other team's clashes.

This is Jane. I currently studying finance in Cityu of Macau. I used to be a BP debater and now I am a judge. I've judged for 5 years. In my way of judging logic is more important than the evidence. So I prefer a logic debate instead of evidence attack. I am more likely to vote for a single, well-developed arguments over many arguments that are not as developed. I don't want u to be a jerk in the crossfire. About the debate style and framework, I really don't care as long as you can express your arguments clearly and logically. Good luck.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Background: I completed in PF for 6-7 years, won multiple awards, and judged a few tournaments. I have also done mock trial in high school and now compete at the college level.

I will not evaluate any Ks, theories, or other forms of technical arguments. I don’t believe they are suitable for PF.

Make the fact that you are winning very clear to me by weighing BOTH links and impacts and doing extra analysis with NUANCE. Your analysis should not only be on the argument “tag” level but also on the evidence level; explain to me why I should prefer your evidence. When the two sides give me polar opposite evidence without extra analysis, it’s hard for me to evaluate the clash.

carded warrant > uncarded warrant > carded unwarranted empirics. Please don’t card dump. Numbers don’t matter unless there are clear links that connect them back to your arguments.

Please refer to evidence at least by last name and year.

Speed: Anything slower than spreading should be fine. If you are speaking too quickly for me to flow (which is rare), I’ll let you know.

Framework is fine but sometimes a waste of time unless you explain to me why your framework is so justifiably different from a line-by-line analysis.

I do not flow CX and will only consider an argument if you bring it up in a speech, not CX. CX is for your benefit to clarify arguments and evidence, not to gain an edge on your opponents.  

I’m fine with roadmap but be concise.

Evidence check is encouraged; check as many cards as you want, but don’t intentionally delay things to buy yourself prep time. If things get malicious, I’ll deduct speaker points.

I’ll call for evidence if it’s important to my decision. Put me (carlguo866@gmail.com) on the email chain if you decide to create one. 

I would take personal insults or any signs of racism, sexism, or homophobia into account and deduct your speaker points significantly.

Last but not least, have fun (the most important thing in a debate round)!

Abrar Ahmed

Age: 33 Years

Ph.D. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, P.R China

1. I have participated in public forum debate leagues as a judge since 2019.

2. If you present evidence without logic or a strong reference you will lose my vote.

3. I have no problem with fast-talking, until and unless the student speaks clearly. My suggestion for students is to "present updated and to the point about the topic". During the debate, your time is very precious so be more specific.

4. Action speaks louder than words. If you can beat your opponents with logic and evidence, you will have my vote. I do not like if some students use non-verbal reactions when their opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up their hands, rapid "no" shaking).

5. As a judge I judge your whole debate but if your evidence is convincing during rebuttal and summary speech, you can win the vote.

6. As the time is limited for each section, so please manage your speech according to the time.

Name: USMAN

Age: 35

College: Shanghai JiaoTong University

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): PhD student

1.      What types of debate have you participated before (only counting ones that you practice/participate extensively) and how long is your debate career?

-          Public Forum debate: 4 years of judging experience from 2018-2022 in debating tournament under NHSDLC and also several times judge under TOC.

2.      1-2 sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy 

I believe public debate is all about evidence with up-to-date examples and impact weighing of it. But please remember to be polite and humble to your opponent during debate especially during crossfire.  

3.      How do you consider fast-talking?

I don’t mind it at all fast talking as far you are polite to your opponents.

4.      How do you consider aggressiveness 

I am not in favor of aggressiveness; it makes you appear irrational Infront of me 

5.      How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?  Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences

As a judge I give win to those team who had good arguments and shows very good performance in rebuttal and final focus.

6.      Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.

Please make sure you do prepare as much up-to-date research on the debate topic as you can before entering the round. You can only be successful with as much knowledge on the topic as you can. Have fun guys and wish you good luck for debate.

anli+debate@u.northwestern.edu for the email chain

Hello! I'm a public forum competitor from the Chinese circuit with over 100 rounds of judging experience, over 150 rounds of competitive experience, and more than three years of experience providing coaching services in one way or another (e.g., preparing research briefs, judging mock debate rounds, etc.). I've collated probably 500,000 words of cards in my debate career. In total, I have more hours in PF debate than my entire Steam library combined.

If you were coached in the Chinese circuit, either read and understand my entire paradigm if you want a fair chance of winning or strike me. It’s your choice.

Concise Version PF 2023

1. If you use clashes you'll probably lose. Winning a clash NEVER equals winning a debate, even if you win more clashes. Instead of using this lazy way, I expect all teams to collapse in summary (how you do this is up to you) which is gonna teach you how to actually critically think instead of just read a script.
2. I also expect all teams to weigh in summary
3. 2nd Rebuttal MUST frontline unless you read theory to justify why not (which skews your time even more, just frontline)
4. I will ignore you in cross
5. If you don't READ (as in, SAY OUT LOUD) the author AND year when introducing your evidence, I'll write on my RFD that you had ZERO evidence. Don't even bothering contesting this, I write down the year and an abbreviation of the author the second you say it so just get good
6. Extensions must have author OR author and year
7. Traditional PF debaters are statistically more likely to lose because of how much I dislike traditional PF debate
8. I can handle spreading but am also open to spreading theory
9. I'll vote on new theory added in second final focus if abuse is severe enough

Before the round starts, you have the option and opportunity to tell me four things, all of which I highly encourage:

1. Flow preference. On paper or digital? If digital, do you want me to do it on Google Sheets and share it with you after the round? If on paper, do you want me to scan the flow and give you a copy after the round? If offline and you want me to flow on paper, will you provide the paper? Keep in mind that my digital flows often have columns dedicated to the issues I have with your arguments, e.g. "doesn't engage", so these are quite useful to see what I interpreted correctly and incorrectly.
2. What color do you want to be on my flow? If I'm flowing on paper, I'll give you options. If digital, you can choose any of 16777216 colors, but keep in mind choosing an unreadable color means I'll drop all of your arguments. I'm serious. If it helps, my spreadsheets are always in light mode, so I encourage choosing a darker color (standard red, blue, green, orange, purple, magenta, black, and cyan are all safe options).
3. If you want feedback after the round, do you want it orally or do you want me to give it to you later via email/text/snail-mail/etc? The latter allows for way more detail but I might... forget some semantics of the round
4. Pronouns

"Pre Theory" (not enforcing these rn)

The following two shells are presumed as true by me before the round even starts, without anyone needing to read them. This is to make the round more inclusive and fair and reduce timesucks. The default voter for all of these shells is "drop the debater."

1. TW theory. Teams must read trigger warnings for arguments that involve violence, r*pe, gore, transphobia, homophobia, etc. including an opt out. I'll exclude broader "death" from this because those are common and rather vague, but if a team believes death should be included as well, you can read theory to implicate this as the case.
2. Pronouns theory. You must use they/them for all debaters and judges in the round unless specified otherwise. If you violate this on accident, simply correct yourself, but if not, I will drop you.

Tech vs Truth

I want to say I'm tech over truth but objectively I'm split 80/20. If you read a crazy argument like (insert your argument), there are two possibilities of how I interpret it:

1. If you have a lot of evidence, even if it's fake, as long as you read the source and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I'll basically take your best case scenario. Once I voted for extinction in elims (and it was a 2-1 for them) because they had reasonable evidence and the opposing engagement with the scenario was inadequate. But if you get caught, you autolose (see evidence ethics).
2. If your links are assertions, expect me to not buy a single one.

Basically, if you have cards, I'm tech over truth; if you read an assertion, I'm truth over tech.

Speech Burdens

1. Second rebuttal must frontline unless you read a theoretical reason why not. Summary must extend defense. Impacts to be weighed must be in both summary and final focus in order for me to consider them, including the entire link chain + all cards. This is to incentivize all debaters to collapse.
2. Final focus must both (1) match summary and (2) have every single impact you want me to vote on. To have an impact doesn't just mean extending the impact, it also includes extending all responses to turns, all links, all internal links, and uniqueness – and all must be carded.
3. If second rebuttal doesn't frontline, your defense is sticky through first summary. In general, all defense (turns, delinks) are sticky until responded to. However, all defense needed to win my vote must be extended into final focus (this generally forces the second speakers to collapse, which is good imo).
4. I will ignore both teams during cross.
5. When you extend impacts in summary, you must extend the entire link chain including all cards.

Evidence Ethics

Super Important. MUST READ. According to the NSDA's official rules found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf: (1) if you add ellipses to your card, you autolose with 0 speaks; (2) if you distort even a single card, even unintentionally, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (3) if you can't produce a card or website for requested evidence, EVEN ONCE, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (4) if you clip your card and you get caught, you autolose with 0 speaks. I'll expand on this with two points: (1) if your opponent wants your source and you only send a URL and exclude author/year, you autolose though I'll still give you speaks; (2) if both teams violate these guidelines, the first team to violate them loses. And for the record, (1) if the tournament you're at doesn't let me give you zero speaks, I'll be marking you as having FORFEITED THE ROUND; (2) this applies to ALL DEBATERS, even those who are novices or who did so on accident because the only way you will ever learn from a mistake is confronting it head on.

Pulling from the same link, if you believe your opponent is falsifying or severely cherry-picking evidence, you have the right to stop the round AT ANY TIME, including during an opponent speech. If your opponent is indeed lying about the evidence, the round immediately ends and you win. If your opponent is NOT lying, the round immediately ends and you LOSE.

Three more definitional things:

1. Cards. If you don't read the author and year on first introduction, it's not a card.
2. Extensions. If you don't read the author on extension, it's not an extension.
3. Cites. If you don't send author, year, and place where somebody could find the source (URL, DOI, title of the book), it's not a citation.

Rhetorical Choices

1. If you use abusively harmful rhetoric (e.g., racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist) intentionally, i.e., you knowingly extend it, it's part of your card, tagline, etc., I will autolose you even if your opponent doesn't point it out. If it's by mistake and you realize you've said something wrong and correct it, no penalty.
2. If you say "him or her" or "he or she" or something instead of a gender neutral pronoun I will drop you for it.

Frameworks

1. If your framework doesn't have a warranted justification, I'll drop your framework. If neither side does, I'll use modified CBA: extinction always comes first, structural violence second, and then util.
2. CBA doesn't need a warrant

Theory

Three things to say about theory:

1. Theory ALWAYS comes first. NO exceptions.
2. If your theory shell doesn't have reasonable justifications (in the standards section or somewhere reasonable), I'll consider voting on it, but I'll really hate you for it and I'll dock your speaks.
3. Disclosure. Please do it. But if you read reasons why not, then I don't care.

Speed

I can comprehend spreading and will say "clear" when it's too fast, except when banned by the tournament. If you decide to spread, there are three things to note:

1. If your opponent reads "speed bad" or "speed theory" or "clear theory" or whatever and you don't clear, you're going to lose.
2. You must give me a speech doc if you're going to go above 300wpm otherwise I will visibly roll my eyes at you, stop flowing, and autolose you (the exception is if you're really clear with your reading and I can't tell you're going so fast).
3. In circuits where speech docs/disclosure are uncommon, you alone will bear full consequences if I decide to stop flowing due to speed.

Speaks

I start at a 28.0 and go up or down based on strategic choices. If you extend every impact into summary, expect your speaks to dip. If you collapse better than I ever could, expect your speaks to shoot up. If you want a bonus:

• Bring me a soda (if offline) and you'll get a 0.3 point bonus
• If you physically turn every time you say turn, you get a 0.3 speak bonus
• If your virtual background (if online) is related to, relevant to, and boosts the rhetorical appeal of your argument, you get a 0.3 speak bonus.
• If you refer to every single author (repeat, every single one) with they/them pronouns, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus. My ears are basically tuned to he/him or she/her because of my own identity, so I'll know if you use the wrong pronoun. The exception is if you have additional evidence to show one of your authors' pronoun preferences, such as their Twitter page.
• If your summary or final focus starts with a funny joke, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus.

The max bonus per round, per speaker is 1.2 points for offline tournaments and 0.9 points for online tournaments. This means you still need good strategy for a 30.

Non-PF Argumentation in PF

The following are my stance(s) on non-traditional arguments/styles commonly seen in LD/CX:

1. Plans. PF rules state that plans are banned, but I... disagree. If the resolution is really broad, I don't see why you can't have a plan. But you need to at least try to prove probability. A super absurd, stupid plan won't fly in PF because that's not what this format is for. So reading "CP: The USFG should give everyone Spotify Premium" just isn't going to convince me. At least try to be topical. Can't say I'm opposed to a plan/cp of something that's actually likely to happen.
2. NIBs. If you can execute it well, sure. Remember not to drop it in summary or final focus.
3. PICs. If the resolution is super wacky like uh uh uh "Resolved: The United States federal government should legalize all illicit drugs." and you read a states CP, I really don't see why I shouldn't give you credit for it. As long as you prove (a) your CP is probable, (b) it's exclusive, and (c) it outweighs, I'm not against giving you credit for PICs.
4. Ks. Honestly why not? As long as it's coherent, I'll give you credit for kritiks. However, if you read some niche philosophy K that I'm not familiar with, you risk the entire argument flying over my head, and if that happens, you're taking responsibility.

Finally, I won't memorize the things I write in my paradigm – just know that I'll enforce certain points more often than others and be more lenient depending on the tournament I'm at/round quality/etc. And, if you game my paradigm to win rather than become a better debater, you'll be the one who regrets it.