Tabroom.com

CHSSA Middle School State Championship

2023 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Zayne Abraham Athens Debate

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 12:55 PM PDT

I've debated for 3 years at Aragon High School.

Shortcut:

1- literally everything(phil, theory, tricks, K)

Top Level:

Go for whatever you want just make sure to explain it. I have debated in every way you can think of I have had pretty much any debate out there. People that have influenced my views in debate a lot are Jarvis Xie, Abhinav Sinha, Yesh Rao, and Jane Lichtman which means paradigmatically my views are pretty similar.

Stuff that will get you higher speaks:

AUTO 30:if you spend 30 seconds of the 1AC playing the homelander sample on "on time" from the metro album into the transition to "superhero" and begin spreading when future starts rapping
AUTO 30: getting sturdy preround
+1.0 spit bars preround like if freestyle and you spit bars +1
+1.0 talking bout how rap lyrics influenced your life.
+1.0: GETTING ME FOOD +1.0: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
+0.5: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
+0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
+0.3: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
+0.3: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Suits, the Office, etc.)
+0.3: Being funny
+0.3: if you add a producer tag before you start spreading or you got a creative card signature
+0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
+0.5/0.1:I will have my switch with me before the round:if you and your opponent both want to, y'all can play a 1-stock game - winner gets +0.1, loser gets -0.1ORyou can play individually play me - winning gets you +0.5, losing gets you -0.1
+0.2/-0.2:Feel free to play music pre-round:if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Drake, J. Cole, and lil Tjay, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task

Arjun Agarwal The Golden State Academy

Aarnav Agrawal Athens Debate None

Alper Altinel Hire

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 12:12 PM EDT

hey whats up guys

my name's alper, ive been debating for 4 years now

Mainly cal LD

FOR LD

Value/Value Criterion is very important - will only evaluate impacts under the framework of the round. If you win an extinction impact but don't tie it back to framework and why it matters, I WILL NOT VOTE ON IT.

Tech > truth, will vote on anything as long as you win the links to access your impact and then explain why it matters under your framework. (and i mean anything).

BIG EXCEPTION: I am a trad ld debater, I don't understand anything prog or circuit. You are welcome to try and read it anyways, if you do it well enough and clearly explain to me why I should vote for you then I will, but know that "first the interp, then the violation" means nothing to me.

Also I am fairly good with speed but only if you actually enunciate. To be safe, you should probably send speech docs if you are planning on going fast.

In cross just don't be annoying please. Perfectly fine to cut your opponent's off if they are rambling, but if they are actually answering your question let them talk. Being annoying in cross = less speaks.

Please please please actually have clash!!! Read arguments that directly tell me why your opponent's arguments are wrong/don't matter.

Weigh and extend in your final speeches. Don't be afraid to collapse on arguments you are losing - I think this is super strategic and a sign of a good debater. You should be telling me what arguments matter the most in the round, why they matter the most, why you won them, and how that means you won the round under the framework. Basically make it as easy as possible for me to vote for you; write my ballot for me.

If neither debater does this and at the end of the debate I'm left with a bunch of arguments with no weighing/connecting back to framework then I will default to evaluating the round like a speech round: best speaker wins. Please don't make me do this, I hate judging speech.

FOR EVERY OTHER DEBATE EVENT:

Don't run theory. I am a lay judge. I understand nothing except argumentation. Don't be annoying in cross. Be respectful and don't insult your opponents. Read arguments, clash, collapse, weigh, extend. Be good!

Funny:

higher speaks if you make jokes/good references in round
+1 speak if you tell me a good knock knock joke before round
-1 speak if you mention lebron james

have fun guys, debate is supposed to be fun! joke around, laugh, talk with your opponents and get to know them a little. lighten up.

Alex Bae Flintridge Preparatory

Avishi Baldwa Thornton Junior High School None

Nakul Banka Hire

Last changed on Sun March 17, 2024 at 2:13 AM EDT

hello,

i dont hate you

2. my last statement is lying to you

3. my second statement is lying to you

4. you already hate my paradigm

im joking

or am i

TLDR

put me on the email chain - bankanakul@gmail.com

i'm usually nice

i usually give a lot of feedback

1. any arg is fine - if it's something not conventionally run on the topic explain it well

2. defense is sticky

3. stuff in ff should be in summary

4. collapse in summaries

5. don't drop arguments (at least the big ones)

6. have fun i guess?

7. if i think ur too rude i'll stop flowing all ur speeches and then evaluate the debate

8. i'm really frickin expressive so if i look confused i am if i start nodding i like what ur saying probably bc i say it in debate woohoo

"steal prep and I'll steal your speaks" - Eli Glickman

tech > truth (i will do my best to not screw you)\

weird stuff - consider absolutely none of this except tech > truth if u are novice

but basically, think of every based judge you've evver seen, that's me

tech ---x------truth ( but at the same time i will call cap)

being chill --x-------being stingy ( i will be stingy in the ballot don't be stingy in round it pisses me off)

K----------x--substance (if ur reading a K, a generic will be ok for you, but a non generic K will be bad for you)

K-Affs--------x-substance ( i hate all K-affs)

Theory--x-------"I don't know how to respond"

Clarity -x------Speed

Spreading --------x----Not spreading

im ok with talking a lil fast that aint a problem

Theory:

i like theory, when its debated well

i hate it when its debated bad

i will reward both sides in a debate if both teams debate it well

dropped theory shell with an impact means no path to ballot for team that dropped it ( as long as i think the theory is valid)

friv theory is ok, but sketchy. like no clothing theory please.

hack for disclo, paraphrasing is bad IN FAST, if its elims with mix panel and more lay than flow - paraphrasing is fine

don't forget to attach an impact to the back (reason to reject the team) - i did this once so...

i know how it works but i don't like it
best way to get my ballot is to NOT run it

TKO

if u know what it is do it, if you don't know what it is don't do it.

(u can ask me before round what it is)

last notes:

be nice and respectful

weigh

dont lie

dont overthink things n just debate

ask if any questions

Tiya Basilio Academy of Higher Learning

Cadia Benshalom Hire None

Neeru Bhan Thornton Junior High School

Anindita Bhattacharya The Golden State Academy

Amit Bindal Joaquin Miller Middle School None

veronica bortz Egan Junior High School None

Akshaj Bozza Hire

Precious Braziel BASIS Independent Fremont(HS) None

Pranav Butaney Blach Intermediate School

Holden Carrillo Westridge School

Last changed on Wed July 24, 2024 at 7:47 AM PDT

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.

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'malso 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:

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

Derek Chang Hire

Maylin Chen Flintridge Preparatory None

Songting Chen Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Amanda Cheng Hire

Olivia Chiang Hire

Isabelle Cho Rancho Middle School

Anik Chobe Hire

Tony Choe ModernBrain

Antonina Clementi Athens Debate

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 1:01 PM EDT

UPDATED FOR 2024

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

I err Tech over Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think…

New affs good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

LOVE THEM

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

Tricks

Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
I am super open to trix bads theory
Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ 2023 topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

Same as LD
Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/y iconcerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

Gianna Colby Tierra Linda Middle School

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 11:00 AM EDT

Hello! My name is Gi Colby. I have been on the speech and debate circuit for over 6 years. I competed in Extemp and Congress in high school, and now I compete in IPDA at the college level. Congress was my main event in high school, and I competed at the likes of Harvard and TOCs and was a finalist at GMU, Sunvitational, and Princeton. I am currently an assistant coach at Tierra Linda Middle School in California, and I work under Marty De to coach events like PF, Parli, Congress, World Schools, and informative events. My former school affiliation was Western High School, and my current university that I attend is the University of Florida.

But enough about my debate career, I would like to emphasize what I like in events.

For interpretation events such as HI and Duo, I like to be entertained. I am not so much of a technical judge with these events as I do not have much experience with them, but I do know the basics, and in general, I just want a well-polished piece that makes me feel something, and a speaker who is great as using gestures and their body language to put a piece together. I do not coach in these events, so I am not as experienced.

With informative and OO, which I do coach in, I like a piece that is meaningful and has a topic with depth. I also value organization and excellent speaking; in fact, I would go as far as to say that I value speaker quality over topic choice. I want you to change my opinion on something or teach me something new; that is the point of these events.

With impromptu, extemp, and Parli, I like a speaker who can think on the fly and is casual about it. All of these events are centered around a lay judge, meaning that the judge has no clue what you are talking about, so I want you to be able to convey and explain the topic and its points effectively. I want to go out of a round as a judge and understand what you are saying. Specifically Parli, I value a team that can "have a conversation" with the other teams' points, meaning that they refute all of the other team's points while staying clear and concise. I also am more of a flow judge in Parli if we are speaking technical terms. Again, I value a good speaker in all events, but in general, I will rank high if you are put together, speak well, and have excellent linkage.

For Congress, SPAR, and PF, the topics that I know the most about, I value refutation. These are called debate events for a reason; if you debate well, have clash, and interact with other speeches in the round well, you have my vote. If you are the first negation in Congress, I expect you to have a basic refutation if you are on the high school level. I want a person who can argue well but also remain collected and composed. I will drop you if you yell at someone else in round. Specifically for Congress, I do not give the winning rank to POs, however, I do respect them enough to give an in-between rank. For PF, I want a well-structured Final Focus, and specifically in this event, I will consider individual performance as well as team performance.

For World Schools (as it is an exception to everything here),I do tend to value the things that you are judged on, like style, content, and strategy. I like a team that is put together, and works well together as a unit, but also has great refutation and a solid framework to the round. I also value speaking more here than at other events because a team that enunciates and has pauses in the right areas is a team for me that speaks great. Like Parli, I am more of a flow judge, but more accommodating to what is going on in the structure of this event. But overall, if you speak clearly, have great points that go with my flow, and you all work cohesively as a team, you have my ballot.

In general, what I value is a good speaker who is polite and fair, but also suited to their event, meaning debate events can argue well, informative events inform me as a judge, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate spreading in any event, so I will not tolerate that. I am not scared to drop you if you are rude because regardless of the event, everyone should have respect for each other as basic human beings. But, just to wrap things up, I want you to be passionate about what you are talking about and convey that passion to me. Best of luck!

Shana Darvishan Hire None

Madhura Deo Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Veena Devarakonda Dougherty Valley Bridge

Donald Fernandes Fremont Debate Academy Centerville

David Finnigan Beverly Vista Middle School

Mark Fireman La Reina None

Ruben Flores Trojan Elite None

Harish Gaggar Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Aayush Gandhi Hire

Varun Ganesan Athens Debate None

Daniel Garepis-Holland Hire

Last changed on Thu July 25, 2024 at 9:34 AM PDT

tl;dr i will evaluate the round based on offense that is extended, frontline and warranted fully, and ideally comparatively weighed so i don’t have to intervene

hi, i’m daniel! i use any pronouns. please add me to the email chain at danielgarepisholland@gmail.com.

i debated pf on the circuit my senior year as palo alto gs and am now a freshman at the university of washington.

i will vote on any argument that is warranted and extended through the round. i'm most comfortable with substance debate (including any kind of framing) and basic theory shells. i also am somewhat comfortable evaluating t, cap, sec, setcol, etc. and some k-affs, mainly fem — but not 100% so take that as you wish. i have a pretty low threshold for disclo and paraphrase, higher for round reports etc.

nothing is sticky

speak as fast as you want (if you send a doc). please, please, please just send the doc regardless, it makes the round like 20% faster and is just a good thing to do. you can speak from wherever you want and wear whatever is comfortable.

i would recommend slowing down in summary or whenever you start to read a lot of analytics

don't misgender people or be discriminatory, reserve the right to drop you for it. please give a cw/anonymous opt-out form for triggering arguments

ideally you should disclose on the wiki before round, your speaks may be boosted if you do so, email me before round if you don't know how

please extend all offense in every back-half speech. this includes uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. for turns remember to also extend the rest of the argument if they kick it. no need to extend cards just warrants is fine, don't spend too long on extensions. ideally signpost you're extending the argument so i can just check it off.

you should be collapsing on one or two key pieces of offense in the round, this dramatically increases the chance that you are actually winning the links on these arguments.

the weighing debate is very important to me. i want to see framing, pre-reqs, link ins, and good clash that is resolved through metaweighing. please reserve enough time for weighing and don't just say we win on magnitude and probability weighing. i generally evaluate the link-level and impact debates somewhat separately, so winning your link is a significant advantage.

Harish Gaur Thornton Junior High School

Aimee Ge Egan Junior High School

Saanvi Goyal Hire

Last changed on Fri July 26, 2024 at 4:34 AM PDT

I've done PF for a couple years now under Monta Vista TG and did decently. I have also dabbled in other events like extemp, impromptu, and OO. For most other events, I generally understand the structure and stuff (but if its other debate events probably just treat me like a trad flow).

Generally:

I try my best to be tech > truth, but I'm not perfect.

My prefs:

1 - Theory/LARP

2 - Framework

3 - Non T K

4 - Topical K

5 - Trix

S - Phil/High Theory

Evidence: If you are in varsity I expect all evidence being read in the next speech to be sent in the email chain or speech drop (please add my email: saanvig2006@gmail.com). You cannot just use a shared google doc.

Speed: PFs version of speed is fine as long as you are being clear and enunicating. I probably won't be able to flow 275+ as well though. Slow down on tags and make them descriptive. If your opponent clears you, please be considerate

Speech Logistics: Second rebuttal needs to frontline everything they want to go for + any turns. Weighing should start in summary.

Argument preference: I'm comfortable with whatever policy positions you want to read.

Theory:

I'm comfortable with and enjoy theory debate. I lowk think pf kids make their shells far too long, I don't need 5 warrants for no RVIs.

Non-Topical Ks, Performance, etc. are chill. However, a lot of yalls methods need to be a lot more warranted than they are, ie I need tangible reasons why your method actually results in some solvency for issues of structural unfairness.

Topical K: I have some decent knowledge of topical kritiks and have read/hit them before but I am not familiar with less common literature, try to go a little slower if reading the K in front of me. Also tag your cards well, K literature can be really dense and hard to understand for people unfamiliar with the specific kritik you are talking about, tags are a great way to simplify the explanations for the judge and competitors. The Ks I'm probably most familiar with are Cap, Set Col, Fem and various forms of pess.

Phil/High Theory/Tricks: I honestly don't understand tricks and most phil things, so I'm going to have a hard time voting for them with no clue whats happening.

Misc: My biggest pet peeve is lateness. Please don't be late, and be ready to get started (flipped, preflowed, email chain setup, doc in the chain or ready to be sent) by the posted round start.

lmk if yall have any questions!

Michelle Gradis La Reina

Paul Festus Green Hire

Justin Greenberg Beverly Vista Middle School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:29 PM PDT

Current Public Forum debater at Beverly Hills High School.

For debate (mainly PF bc its just better :)

I’m fine with some speed, but if you plan on spreading, or talking at fast paces, give an off-time roadmap and I will allow that. Make contentions clear, make points clear, and any/all sources should be cited [Last name of author/year]. A source that is not cited in NSDA format may not count towards my decision and may not help your case....unless their is a specific tournament exemption (but don't stress about it).

How I decide a winner:
1) Quantifications: Unless you boldly choose to go with a deontological --or something similar-- framework, I want to hear quantifications. For example, if you tell me "more people will be arrested because of (insert resolution)" but do not tell me how many people have been, or will be --I.e a number--, chances are, I wont give that argument much weight. Quantifiable impacts are big for me.

2) Definitions and framework: You don't need either of these, but they usually will help your case (assuming they are the right choices). A good definition and framework goes a long way in building a bulletproof case that flows cleanly through. Keep in mind that definition must be in line with the wording of the resolution. Don't bend the wording of the resolution. That said, it's really only a beneficial thing, it won't hurt you if neither team blows me away with their framework and definitions.

3) Weight: Hey second speaker --or just speaker in the rare case I ever judge LD--! Listen up close! A good final focus --or 2NR/2AR-- usually means the difference for me.....and most people who have ever judged a round. Weigh the debate. Tell me what you offer, tell me what the opponent(s) offer(s), and tell me why your case/line of argumentation holds more weight. I can not make this clear enough. If you do not weigh the debate throughout, but moreso in the final speech, you can say goodbye to the win (unless you are exceptionally compelling in the other portions of the debate).

Finally, use cross to your advantage, I WILL use this to decide a winner.

Other than that, just be respectful and honest.

For speech/congress:

Prefer less speed, as I’m really going to be finding the core of your points and not what they literally state.

Really get into why I should listen to you, tell me what you offer, and why you are undoubtedly correct.

Ask questions!!

Peter Guo Hire

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 2:06 PM PDT

I have 5 years experience debating in parliamentary debate. My partner and I won CHSSA and participated in TOC. If you're doing LD or PF I have only done one tournament of each so excuse me if I don't understand it very well.

first off, tech>truth

Plans---All types of plans are welcome, including out of ordinary ones, as long as you can defend why it is resolutional. Counter-plans are welcome and same with the aff perm on the counter plan. As long as aff can prove the two plans are not mutually exclusive and there is actually benefits to gain, I'll vote for the perm and flow over the advantages that come from the counter-plan. That goes for the neg as well, if the aff perms the CP, tell me why they shouldn't be allowed to do that or why it will actually be worse by running both at the same time. My team once ran a plan to nuke Iran and how it will end the middle east problems, so feel free to run any plan as long as you can prove why it would win the criteria.

Theory---I'm fine with all the theories you try to run if you provide a full shell and proven abuse. The aff just calling fiot is not a viable response to the theories, give me the full responses, also, no time suck arguments.

Kritiks--- I love Ks and frequently run Ks against my opponents, I am mostly familiar with Cap and Fem, although I have met buddhism, gift, and set col. I will vote for aff Ks if they win the framework debate and tell me why this should be the most important thing in round, make sure to include a rotb.

Case---Links to impacts and solvency to plan is important, at the end of the round, what i'll base off of for impacts is the rebuttal. Make sure to tell me why your impacts still stands and why it fits the criteria the best. Prob vs Mag, aff vs neg World comparison all all great ways to show why its better to vote for you.

speaks--- Most of the time I'll give at least 25 speaker points, timing, emphasis, putting emotions into your speech and showing how much you actually believe in your side will affect speaks. If you run a K really well I'll most likely give 30 speaks to both debaters on that team and likewise lower speaks if they ran it pretty badly. Speaks don't affect how I judge the round, even if you are a better speaker but the other team's case is stronger, I WILL give them a low point win.

Voters in order---Kritiks, theories, criteria, impacts

poi---try to take 1-2 poi's per speech

RVI--- come on guys, if it's something along the lines of talking too fast(when you didn't tell them), time suck, etc, just use the time on strengthening your case of refuting theirs, I'm not gonna be voting on that.

I am not a tabula rasa judge only to the points of facts, if you make a point with made up statistics or factually proven wrong information, I will intervene on the flow, dropping your speaks and disregarding that point while weighing the round. Outside of facts, any other things you say, like ex:nuking everyone would be good, as long as your opponents dont refute that point, i'll believe it.

don't worry about my own politics, view on LGBTQ+, or any of the controversial topics as long as you are addressing everything respectfully and not with intentions of disrespect or contempt.

feel free to ask me any questions before round starts, good luck guys.

KaLeah Guptill Athens Debate

Lennis Han Hire

Jeff Harkleroad Liangyi Youth Leadership

Last changed on Thu July 25, 2024 at 4:45 AM EDT

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Zivah Hartman Hire None

Bharti Hathalia The Golden State Academy

Lucas A. Havemose Hire

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 11:10 AM PDT

Debate is fundamentally a verbal communication activity, and I expect the strategies of debaters to reflect that. This means that I prefer to have a slower debate with more nuance compared to a fast debate with more volume. While I can handle speed, it needs to be pristinely clear with signposting throughout. If I cannot understand what is being said, or I don't know where it should be flowed, I will not flow it and I will not vote on it. I will hold up my pen to indicate that I cannot follow what is being said.

Whether or not a written case has been shared with me doesn't change this, and does not make up for your lack of speaking ability. I view case sharing as a way to better allow the examination and verification of the evidence provided by each side to protect the integrity of the activity, not as a way to allow for mediocre speaking. Case sharing should only happen with the agreement of all parties in the round, and I will not view cases only shared by one party.

Courtesy, to both your opponents and your partner, is very important to me. If you cannot explain your argument or participate in cross examination in a professional manner, then you are not a superior debater and you will not get my vote.

Analytics are the most important part of debate in my opinion. Explaining how the evidence does or does not link together, what the implications of this is, and what exactly the difference between the affirmation and the negation are is the best way to persuade me. In other words, try to write my ballot for me.

While I will believe whatever is presented to me as long as there is no contention to it, the affirmative has the burden of proof and thus arguments without a clear winner go to the negation. For me to vote in the affirmation, there needs to be a clear benefit in contrast to the negation. New arguments in final speeches will not flowed, and will not be voted on.

I debated throughout all 4 years of high school, participating in PF, Parli, and Policy. I judged for the last 2 years of high school, mainly judging PF and LD.

Tori Hoge La Reina

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 7:59 AM PDT

TLDR;

I like K’s; i believe they have an important place in debate when done right. Don’t be mean. You do you honestly. Read anything and warrant it well, I’ll probably vote for it.

About Me

pronouns: she/her

I am a junior at Stanford.

put me on the email chain: torihoge@stanford.edu

events i have competed in from most frequently to least: policy, ld, parli, pofo, congress, impromptu (at heart, i am a policy kid)

I coach nationally all levels of policy, LD, and public forum. Do with that what you will.

PET PEEVES:

1. is everybody ready. Say is anyone not ready and begin 2. my timer starts now. Just hit start 3. (for online debate) please turn your camera on when you are speaking 4. don't decide your roadmap while you are talking. at least sound certain of what order you are going in

IMPORTANT READ:

If there is anything I can do to accommodate your needs, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Do not read a K just because you saw I like k’s. Do not use other’s oppression for a ballot. This is not okay. You must be well versed in the literature and have a genuine understanding and care for the argument you read, or don’t bother. I don’t like performative activism or reading things just for a ballot. I would rather do a lot of things than watch a bad k debate. If k’s are your thing and you are knowledgeable, then go for it, it’s my favorite kind of debate.
Also include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of racial/settler/ableist/anti-queer/gender-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide.
My philosophy: if you can explain a very complex topic in simple enough words to explain to a grandparent, then you are a very good debater
If you do anything of the -ists or -ics (think racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) you will receive an L-25
email me before or after if you wanna talk about literally anything or if you have any questions about my paradigm or about the round

I’m a great judge for you if:

you like k debate or read mostly critical arguments
you like technical, high speed debate
you have fun, quirky arguments that demonstrate a lot of personality
you are amazing at T
you have a well-researched stock case

K’s

I was a k debater in high school. This is not an invitation to read any k ever. I do not know or understand the premise of every single k that exists. For reference k’s I have debated are neolib/cap, fem ir, queer ir, security, imperialism, setcol, and speaking for others. At least, that is what I can remember off the top of my head. Even if you are reading a k that I have read, explain it and warrant it as if I have no idea what is going on. K’s need some alt or a very good explanation of why defense is enough and why you don’t need one. K’s need a specific link otherwise they don’t work. What you’re talking about may be important, but if it does not link, then it is not part of the conversation.

Nontopical/K-affs

I don’t really care if they are in the direction of the topic or not. I think that it is stupid that some judges are like at least run a K in the direction of the affirmative, like no that’s quite literally not the point of k-affs. Also, I read my fair share of k-affs in high school primarily fem killjoy and open borders. I am ok with k-affs, but again do not just read them for a ballot, and do them right.

Topicality (not theory)

I like (and can even love) topicality debates when they are done right. However, if T is not your forte, DO NOT RUN IT IN FRONT OF ME. I despise bad T debates.

Theory (distinct from topicality)

Sometimes can be justified, but it has never been a voting issue for me. Run it if you want, but it better be warranted.

CPs

I think they’re great for stock debate. I think they help generate offense. However, I need a very clear explanation of why the perm cannot work, or else I am prompted to vote on the perm. I default to the perm if the explanation does not make sense, if I do not follow, or if it is contradictory. Perm work here is very important for me. Also this should be obvious but I’m putting it in because I see it wayyyyy too many times. YOUR DA SHOULD NOT LINK TO THE CP. that’s the point of a cp.

DAs

Also good for stock debate. Warrant well. Connect to a terminal impact. I think that they need some sort of CP or K with them.

CHSSA/Lay debate

I really don’t care what the “rules” are or whatever the handbook says. If your only strategy is to complain that they are cheating or aren’t following the rules, then get better at debate: learn how to debate substance.
Don’t try any mind tricks. I am flowing. I know when your opponent dropped something or when they did not. Do not claim they dropped something when they did not.

I was very heavily influenced by Andrea Chow. Andrea is the goat and was also my partner in high school. Check out her paradigm for more context as I generally agree with all of her philosophies.

Lawrence Hou Redwood MS None

Lisa Howard Athens Debate

Emily Hu Alannah Debates

Jehan Jacobs Bear Creek High School

Alpesh Jain Joaquin Miller Middle School

Charu Jain Joaquin Miller Middle School

Ramesh Jaladi Stratagem Learning

Sung Jun Jeon Athens Debate

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 6:36 AM EDT

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

Manish Kadakia Redwood MS

Bhavana karnik Stratagem Learning None

Mathew Karnyski Academy of Higher Learning

Padmaja Khulbe Joaquin Miller Middle School

Aiden Kim Athens Debate

Last changed on Fri July 26, 2024 at 9:18 AM PDT

kritiksarecheating@gmail.com

Sage Oak Charter AK

Don't care about being on the chain. I flow without the doc. What you say is what I get down.

Obligatory "I think like my coaches" - thanks Pat Fox, Brett Cryan, Bryce Sheffield, Vik Maan, and Aidan Etkin.

Additional thanks to some of my best friends in debate - Sterling Utovac, Niranjan Deshpande, William Trinh - and my policy partner, Laura Huang. Special shoutout to Sterling, because most of the thoughts I profess here are the result of conversations with him.

I. Basics

None of us had to be here at 8 am on a weekend. I will give my full attention to whatever you have to say, whether that's the death K, Baudrillard, or the rider DA. Likewise, I expect to you to treat your opponent with respect.

"That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster" - pat

I flow on my laptop, but will not have other tabs open.

II. Ground rules

Nothing you do or say will change these factors in my decision calculus.

A. Debate is a game that requires 1 winner and 1 loser.

B. Do not misgender people. This is non-negotiable.

C. Do not be racist, sexist, etc.

D. Ad homs will not earn you the ballot. They will earn you 25 speaks. "entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know" - pat.

E. The affirmative speaks first and last and thus has the burden of positive proof. The negative speaks second and thus has the burden of rejoining the aff.

F. Speech times. 6-7-4-6-3. These do not change.

G. If an accusation of clipping or an ev ethics violation are alleged and the round is explicitly staked, I will stop the debate and decide internally whether the accusations are true or false. The winner gets a W29, the loser an L20.

III. Thoughts on specific arguments

A. Kritik/K affs

I was involved in a substantial portion of these debates in high school. I am better for K debaters that are highly technical, and make arguments that seek to rejoin the plan. I am worse for K debaters that rely on fanciful rhetoric, grandstanding, and edgy performances to win.

Link turns case and K impact turns it are arguments that are criminally underutilized in LD. I'm increasingly frustrated with the amount of time LD K debaters spend grandstanding instead of explaining their theory of power or how the link indicts the 1AC. This is probably due to the way that judging traditionally considered "good for the K" has evolved, especially on the East Coast. Nonetheless, explaining why the link interferes with 1AC solvency makes the 3 minute 2AR on plan focus and extinction outweighs far harder to give, albeit still convincing.

People should impact turn Ks more. Every K probably thinks heg and cap are bad (or they probably don't solve the link). Although the LD 1AR is too short to read some of the better heg cards, impact turns as a component of offense against Ks other than cap should definitely become a more substantive part of the meta.

I lean slightly neg on T-framework. I am persuaded by the idea that debates over a topical plan are good, but can be convinced to vote the other way. Impact turning framework is likely more convincing than a counterinterpretation that purports to solve the negative's limits offense.

B. Disads

I largely went for these negating. 2NRs on DA/case should be short on internal link explanation/overviews, heavy on turns-case analysis. Two sentences is a sufficiency. You should also weigh. Weighing is good and important. Explain why your offense comes before theirs.

Meta-weighing is also good and criminally underutilized - a lot of debaters just assert that timeframe comes before magnitude, or vice versa, without a warrant. "Intervening actors check" is not an argument.

Evidence quality matters, but sometimes analytics are better than evidence. Card quality in LD is atrocious - sometimes, instead of reading your russia D from 2012, you'd just be better off making analytic arguments about how Ukraine proves Russia's washed. It takes less time too.

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. If there is a 50% chance that Ukraine aid passes in the world of the plan, but a 0% chance that it passes in the world of the DA, I vote aff.This isn't to say that the link CANNOT control the direction of uniqueness, but that the inverse is generally true for most disads (especially politics, dipcap, etc).

This should also highlight the importance of cutting updates to internal link ev and uniqueness. I don't want to judge the farm bill DA with uniqueness from 2020. That passed a year ago. Cmon guys.

C. Counterplans

Dense counterplan competition throwdowns were the debates I was least involved in and, by extension, the debates I am the least comfortable with judging. That said, I should be relatively okay for these rounds.

Debaters should think a lot more about the quality of evidence for a lot of process CPs. The authors of a lot of these articles are writing in the context of legal hypotheticals and often hasten to explain that anybody who tried these things in the real world would be patently insane. Letting the solicitor general, courts, or whatever make decisions about how the military works or whether UBI should be implemented would probably collapse the entire US government and it's legal, institutional, and historical legitimacy. Aff teams should say these things more.

Function > text. I'm not sure why changing "ought" to "should" means that the counterplan competes. This change in wording probably doesn't affect whether or not the counterplan could be implemented in the world of the aff. I think the most persuasive argument for textual competition is that it's most consistent with the legal process, but this seems to be fallacious. While legal interpretation certainly places an emphasis on semantics, it is generally recognized that the functional effect of the law should supersede quibbles over it's wording.

Likewise, I'm not persuaded by textual nonintrinsicness as a check on full intrinsic permutations. Functional competition makes a lot more sense to me in a purely logical sense - if the counterplan cannot occur in the world of the aff, it likely competes.

Advantage counterplans are good, but debaters should write real planks. "Substantially increase aid to the Middle East" is not a real plank. Where? Who? How? It makes no sense to me that process counterplan debaters are generally forced to delve into the minutia of the mechanics by which their arguments function, but advantage counterplans are written incredibly vaguely.

D. Topicality

Don't have much to say here. Definitions are good. You should counterdefine words in the topic as the basis of an argument for why your interpretation of the topic is predictable and do a lot of comparative analysis when giving a 2NR on limits/precision. I think there's probably little distinction between "semantics" and "pragmatics" per se. There is probably a semi-bidirectional link between the two.

I have little patience for LDers that treat T like frivolous theory. No, I will not be happy evaluating your RVIs.

E. Phil/Theory

This is the type of debate in which I am the least experienced. I'll still vote on these arguments, but I had relatively little contact with them as a debater. However, I am studying philosophy in college, so I'll hopefully have some idea about what you're talking about. Better for fully carded kant, skep, etc (in the Texas DK style) and less good for cheapshots like hidden indexicals, etc.

I'm bad for theory that isn't from policy debate. ASPEC, condo, etc are fine. Spec status is not.

IV. Speaks

Since when did these matter so much?????

30 - I expect to see you win the NDT on a 5-0 decision this year

29.9-29.8 - I expect to see you in finals of the tournament

29.7-29.5 - You're in semis/quarters

29.2-29.4 - You'll probably bid here

29-29.1 - You'll be in elims

28.7-28.9 - You'll get 4-2 screwed

28.4-28.6 - You're an average debater (3-3)

28.3-28 - Low 3-3, upper 2-4 bracket

27.9 - 27.6 - You're going 1-5 or 0-6

27.5-27 - Go muck about in JV for a bit

26 and below - you did something ethically dubious

V. Closing thoughts/idiosyncrasies

"Not voting on call outs. Not my business." - brett

"not interested in voting on cheapshots" - pat

"Will evaluate after 1NC; 2AR is "after 1NC"" - sterling

Jessica Kim Thornton Junior High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:02 PM EDT

heyy everyone! im jessica, been doing pf debate for 4 years.

GENERAL: speaks.as a debater, i understand how annoying it is to get low speaks. i will honestly give every speaker good speaks UNLESS you make racist, homophobic, or similar comments during the round. really good speeches or crossfires will earn you more points.

PUBLIC FORUM PREFERENCES: i'm a flow judge, but that being said, it doesn't mean i don't somewhat value presentation. make sure to maintain a good pace and try not to stumble over your words too much. you can get technical, but don't go to the point where you are spreading. you can go somewhat fast, but be understandable

defense/offense. defense and offense need to be extended through summary and final focus. if something is dropped, i'm not going to vote on it.

collapsing. PLEASE collapse. for those of you who don't know what this means: in summary (or second rebuttal), hone in on one argument that your opponents have little or bad responses to. then blow this up, i mean tell me why it is the most important argument in the round!! don't forget to extend though, as in extend the most important evidence from this contention (example: The most important argument in this round is our first contention on _, we extend Barnes 22 which tells you that _, and our impact is the economy, as Roberts 21 quantifies __)

weighing. ALSO weigh. tell me why your argument is more important than your opponent's argument. don't just throw around the words "magnitude", "timeframe", and "scope", TELL ME WHY THEY MATTER

rebuttal. make sure to SIGNPOST (meaning tell me which point you are responding to) and also NUMBER RESPONSES PER CONTENTION (this means you should say stuff like "on their first contention of _, we have 10 responses" and then go through each one of them). please don't miscount your responses by saying that you have 30 and just reading 3 :((

i will evaluate disclosure theory, but know that while i have seen theory debates before, i have less experience running theory myself

let me know if you have any questions about my paradigm/preferences. have fun debating guys!

Elina Kohanbash Hire None

Ashutosh Kumar Athens Debate

Aeni Lee The Golden State Academy None

Brian Lee Brooks Debate Institute

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 3:04 PM PDT

My email is brianylee2003@yahoo.com. I am a parent judge. I have no prior debate experience, but my child has competed in PF for the past year. You should assume that I am knowledgeable about the topic if it is PF.

Evidence: I am not tech > truth, so if you want to argue the sky is green, I won't buy it. But I am open to reasonable interpretations of evidence (e.g., sky is purple, pink, orange, blue, a mixture of hues, etc.), particularly if your opponent fails to contest your interpretation.

Please be honest about your evidence. Your credibility matters A LOT. If your opponent points out a weakness in your evidence, you can try to dodge it by diversion, etc., but don't outright lie about it. If you're caught in an outright lie, you WILL lose your round.

Moreover, I want to reward the team that has done its research and can back up their contentions with solid evidence. That's why it is not uncommon for me, especially during elimination rounds, to request to examine cards that I think are crucial to how I might decide the debate.

Spreading/Speaker Score: Don't speak at a supersonic speed. My upper limit for comprehension is about 200 words per minute. So if your speech exceeds 800 words in a 4-minute speech, consider shortening it. Competitive debate may be the only activity where confusing your opponent through mumbling is allowed. I accept it as the reality, but I don't want to reward it. Spread at your own risk.

Beyond your mastery of language and confident articulation, I'm also looking for the ability to explain complex ideas simply and logically. Clarity is crucial in getting a high speaker score from me. Be careful about tossing around jargons. While I may understand it, excessive use of jargons in lieu of plain speaking may lower your speaker score.

During cross, I want to see polite, but assertive examination. Being passive may lower your speaker score.

Constructive: During this phase, I'm looking for debaters to (a) describe a problem, (b) explain to me precisely how the resolution you're advocating for will help solve the problem, and (c) tell me the impacts.

Too often I see debaters unable (or perhaps unwilling) to describe the problem beyond vague, general terms. For example, if you want to argue Chinese hegemony, tell me what specific behavior of China you want to stop or counter. Simply throwing around fancy labels like "hegemony" or "multi-polarity" won't do it for me.

The same goes for (b). To convince why your proposal will work, you need to cite either a credible expert explaining how it will work, or a historical example showing how it has worked, or at least logical reasoning and common sense why it will help. If, after four minutes, I struggle to connect the dots, it would be challenging for me to lean in your favor.

When it comes to impacts, I don't always go with the biggest one. I measure magnitude of an impact along with likelihood as well as timeframe. More importantly, if you don't do (a) and (b) well, I can't give you (c). In other words, accessing (c) is a direct function of doing (a) and (b) well.

Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus. Rebuttal is straightforward, so I won't elaborate. For summary and final focus, I'm looking for debaters who can bring CLARITY (yes, that word again). That often means collapsing if you have three or more contentions and telling me how the contentions interact with each other. Tell me what I need to focus on, why your contention wins, and why your impacts outweigh. Clarity is the key to earning my vote.

Good luck!

Jason Nam Lee Hire None

Sophia Lew Egan Junior High School None

Rohan Lingam Hire

Last changed on Tue July 16, 2024 at 5:11 PM PDT

Bellarmine '24. Stanford '28.

Add me to the email chain: rohanlingam2015@gmail.com

I have a deep level of respect for the preparation that goes into debate tournaments. I will do my best to reciprocate that dedication with a firm commitment to judging rounds strictly on technical execution, not my personal opinions. I'm not a blank slate, so always err on the side of explanation, story-telling, and persuasion. Be scrappy. Go for the path of least resistance. Don't shy away from clash. Given that, I’ll list several of my ideological dispositions below to be as transparent as possible — each of which can be reversed by out-debating the other team. My one unshakeable belief is that I will not vote on ad homs, strategies that rely on events that occured outside the round, and evidence ethics challenges.*

I don’t want a card doc. I’ve found it increasingly problematic that teams treat these docs as a third rebuttal. I will never reorganize a debate by reading evidence myself. Evidence is for you to explain and impact out.

K Affs: I’m very good for T-USFG against affirmatives that do not defend a hypothetical enactment of the resolution. Fairness is the best impact. I’m also very persuaded by defensive negative arguments that subsume a majority of affirmative offense, including switch-side debate and topical versions of the aff.

T: Interpretations couched in the language of predictable limits are best. Spend more time on internal link comparison than on high-level impact comparison at the top of your final rebuttals. I would prefer to not evaluate contrived interpretations that have questionable caselists. Especially for the negative, T debating is about painting a story of what worlds of debate would look like under each model using concrete examples. I’m not persuaded by a 2NC that rants about possible fringe affirmatives; explain why being able to read these affirmatives would make it impossible to debate.

CP: Infinite conditionality is good. Default is judge kicking the CP. Neg-leaning on most theoretical objections, but aff-leaning on international, private actor, and multi-actor fiat. Most affirmative objections are better communicated in the language of competition. I think affirmative competition interpretations are best grounded in defenses of specification as 'functions' of the plan. Generally not a fan of generic process CPs. Perms should be paired with a solvency deficit to flip offense-defense framing affirmative (obviously barring PDCP). Problems with CP planks not having advocates are better expressed through deficits rather than theory.

DA: I wish every 2NR in debate was disad/case. I find most overly simplistic, hyperbolic impact calc unhelpful in evaluating debates. The link is usually more important than uniqueness to me. Spin matters far more to me than evidence. I’m a sucker for rebuttals that go through each portion of the DA and explain numbered framing issues for how I should evaluate that specific portion.

Case: I am happy to vote negative on presumption provided burdens are explained and won.

K: I’m very good for 'extinction outweighs' against Ks that fail to moot the affirmative. I'm best for FW models that entirely exclude the case or the K. Neg teams should probably go for FW in front of me. I will always start evaluating these debates with FW. I will decide in favor of one side’s interpretation, not arbitrarily manufacture a middle ground.

Lay: I will never penalize (and will, in fact, be enthused by) a team who adapts to the slowest judge on their panel. Accordingly, I will excitedly adjudicate a debate that deals with stock issues and deep logistical case presses.

*There are only two scenarios where I will consider these arguments. First, if Team A has read a miscut card in an earlier debate, Team B has made substantial good-faith efforts to reach out to them about it (which includes multiple emails), and Team A continues to read the same miscut card, I’m very willing to vote for Team B. Second, if a team has disclosed an affirmative as “new” despite reading cards from earlier rounds, that is the textbook definition of cheating. You deserve to lose.

Yi Liu Dougherty Valley Bridge

Ayden Loeffler Athens Debate

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 10:31 AM PDT

CASE DEBATE- Case debates should end with two conflicting blocks of impact calculous that explain how each side is acquiring the ballot through their win conditions. I find these to be most compelling through the lenses of Time Frame, Probability and Magnitude. The teams that better access these forms of impact weighing will typically win my ballot.

THEORY - Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you aren't buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just read it slowly because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Wesley Loofbourrow Athens Debate

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 5:24 AM PDT

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Lauren Lopez Flintridge Preparatory None

Taylor Luna Egan Junior High School

Yang Luo Stratford Preparatory School None

Manoj Madhukar Thornton Junior High School None

Kirthi Mahender Thornton Junior High School None

Vedant Maheshwari Hire

SUSHANTA MAJI Fremont Debate Academy Centerville None

Tania Makhija Hire None

Arushi Mani Hire None

Alex Martin La Reina

Emilio Menotti Able2Shine

Chaith Mittal Hire

Sabahat Nabiha Flintridge Preparatory None

HARINADH NAGULAPALLI The Golden State Academy

Maanika Nambudiri Hire None

Hari Nidumolu Stratford Middle School - San Jose None

Aidan Okyar Hire

Last changed on Wed March 27, 2024 at 3:26 AM PDT

Hello! I'm Aidan, a current speech and debater for Bellarmine College Prep (class of '26!)-- I'm happy to be your judge (:

Add me to the email chain: aidan.okyar@gmail.com

You can email me there or at aidan.okyar26@bcp.org if you have any questions about decisions.

I've done S&D for ~5 years: I did LD in MS but now do Policy and Extemp in HS.

Generally, in round, please be respectful, clear, and overall just enjoy your experience!

Now, onto more specifics:

Debate:

Generally, be a good speaker-- be clear, etc. I will time you and will stop flowing when time ends. In any sort of cross-examination, crossfire, POI, etc-- don't be a jerk!

Speaks: Be a good debater AND speaker-- make good arguments AND have good delivery-- one or the other is okay, but most times, only debaters who do both excellently will get high speaks from me. CX matters here too!

Follow general etiquette please. Any sort of homophobia/racism/etc = lowest possible speaks+L. As tabroom reminds me right above where I write this paradigm, "in other words, be mature, and good people."

General tips:

I take CX seriously and into account! Use them to undermine your opponents' arguments!
Be clear and clash with arguments
Frame and impact out the round

Policy:

I love the realism of stock issue debate and how we really are debating over a policy as if it was going to be passed. Some notes:

delivery matters! don't just stare at your paper/computer and speak to it-- look at me (i won't bite, i swear)! be clear and persuade me-- that's the point of the debate in my opinion.
Give me burdens for stock issues/how each team can win the round/what the aff/neg burden is, etc.
be concrete-- don't get bogged down in hypotheticals or vague exchanges-- cite evidence and be direct
CLASH!! so often, as my amazing coaches always say, debates are like "two ships passing in the night" (don't make them like that)
PLEASE EXTEND WARRANTS AND IMPACTS-- it's not enough to just say that "x argument is dropped" or "x argument is true" but you need to tell me why and what that means for the round.
do some impact calculus. Why should I prioritize your impacts over your opponents? What does the plan causing some economic damage mean? Contextualize and compare.
Use CX to undermine your opponent's arguments-- you should be setting up your questions in cx and try to have a strategy of what you want to get out of it. Don't just scattershot a bunch of random questions and hope they trip up.
collapse in your 2nr/2ar: the negative strategy should be ironed out by this point in the debate, and only the core arguments should be extended-- on the other hand, the affirmative should be able to extend a coherent story which tells me exactly why a policy is needed, how it will work, and its effects.
have fun! too often we get stuck in the "extracurricular" or "college activity" aspect of debate-- have fun debating about the topic.

Speech:

Extemp:
I do extemp right now at the HS level, and I'm versed with the event's workings. Will be timing & will give you time signals from 5 down if I can-- please time yourself in case I ever fly off the rails. I care about both delivery and content, but generally, if you can hook me into your speech do it however you want-- be funny or serious-- whatever you can do for your speech. Some asks: have full cites with publication and specific date, have a clear answer to your question (e.g: if it's a "how...?" question-- outline what you would do, etc) and be CLEAR with your analysis-- make it unique and specific. Make sure you summarize your speech quickly but well in your conclusion.

Impromptu:
I love listening to good impromptus! Some tips: I will be skeptical on your "personal stories" because I can't validate those, a good intro related to the topic is always good, please make sure to relate your subpoints to your topic after every point. Be funny, be serious, do whatever you need to do-- I'm just here to listen, and I'm open to anything.

I know speech and debate can be difficult-- you got this! Just remember what I've said for your event(s) and have fun above everything else :D

Good luck!!

Dhruva Pappu Hire

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:31 AM PDT

EXPERIENCE: I am a varsity parliamentary debater in high school, and have a history of public forum debate as well. I have been doing debate for about 4-5 years now.

Here are some of my preferences. If you have any questions, please ask.

RESPECT: It is really important to be very respectful while being passionate in a debate. Being passionate and being disrespectful are two completely different things bordered by a fine line, please do not cross it. If you aren’t respectful, you will have speaker points deducted, and if worst comes to worst, the win will go to the other team.

SPREADING: I am a flow judge, so spreading will not be an issue with me. But speak at whatever speed you want.

K’s: I do not recommend giving K’s at a novice level simply because nobody really understands them, and they are a really big hassle to actually argue. That being said, if you do choose to run them, I will flow, but it is entirely your job to connect the dots for me.

THEORY: Similar to K’s I do not recommend you running them, but I will flow them if you do choose to run them. Once again, it is entirely up to you to make it work in the constraints of the round. I will not be connecting the dots for you.

CP’s: When it comes to Public Forum debate, I do not recommend using CP’s whatsoever, especially at a novice level.

CLASH: I am a big fan of clash in a debate, and often find it lacking in many rounds. If there is clash in the round, please explain it to me in either your summary or final focus speeches. When it comes to clash, please present your evidence clearly such that the opposing team and I, as the judge, can understand.

TECH > TRUTH: I understand that some arguments do not have evidence readily open, but if they make logical sense, and you present it in such a way, I will consider it on my flow.

SIGNPOSTING: Please signpost. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is to your own organization and clarity, but it also helps with my flow as well as your opponents.

IMPACTS: This is probably single-handedly one of the most important parts of debate. This plays a significant part in my flow. Not only do you have to state your impact and your source, but you also have to weigh it well in your last speeches. If your opponents have a bigger impact than you, you can still win if you prove how yours is more relevant and more imminent.

EVIDENCE/CARDS: If there is a card sharing document being used, please share it with me. Make sure that whenever you are showing your opponents your card, that I can see it as well. If your evidence does not make sense, I will be waiting for it to be contested, and I will be looking things up myself. However, I will not be giving the result based off of what I have seen, and will only include it if your opponents state it clearly in their cases.

STANDARD/FRAMEWORK: Likewise to impacts, your framework is what I will be judging the entire round based off of. If you and your opponents have different frameworks, it is up to the both of you to prove how one is more important and should be used over the other. I will not be judging based on my personal preference, but rather based off what is argued more effectively.

PREP TIME: This is there for you to use to your advantage. PLEASE USE IT! It will only help you. I will be keeping track of your time on my end as well.

SPEECH TIMES: Your speeches should all be falling within the times allotted per speech, but I will be giving you a 15 second grace period. Once again, I will be timing on my end.

CROSSFIRES: I will not be flowing crossfires. If anything important is said here, it is your job to mention this in your later speeches. Be respectful and allow everyone to speak. Don’t get too worked up and yell. Remember that this is a safe learning environment.

DISCLOSURE: I will disclose results as well as giving an oral rfd if the tournament allows it. I will also be putting comments into the online ballot.

SPEAKER POINTS: I will typically not give anyone less than a 25 for speaker points, unless I really feel like lots of improvement is needed. Make sure you stay calm, present your arguments well, and have good clarity.

PARLI SPECIFIC:

I am a parli debater and know how stressful it can be. I to consider tech over truth so have fun with that.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS YOUR DAY TO SHINE! REMEMBER TO ALWAYS TRY YOUR BEST, LEARN FROM THE DEBATES, AND HAVE FUN!

Andrew Park Hire

Ethan Park Blach Intermediate School

Last changed on Thu June 20, 2024 at 3:03 PM PDT

about me:

hi, i'm ethan (any pronouns), a junior parli debater with mvla. i've had 16 different partners so you might've seen me on the circuit with: yuika sun, caleb lin, sandy xu, preston bhat, caroline martin, catherine wong, sophia zhang, keira chatwin, abhinav kasturi, taylor luna, nevin pai, calista woo, grace chang, sumanth mahaligam, sally tei, and abby zhou. my views on debate have been shaped by each of those partners who come from all kinds of debate backgrounds. all of that just means i'm down for whatever type of debate you wanna do.

tl;dr:

tech > truth. this is your debate, run whatever you want. signpost, extend your arguments, and do good weighing. don't worry about me rejecting any arguments. as long as you're warranting and implicating your arguments i can evaluate anything. i don't intervene (except maybe on accident oops). if i think an argument is problematic, i'll vote on the flow but report you to tab + your coach.

general:

all arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication
nothing is sticky and shadow extensions make me sad
extend terminal defense/resolve offense if you're trying to kick out of something
collapse
weigh
comfortable with ~300wpm w/o docs. dont spread out your opponents
tag teaming is fine (but i only flow speaker unless given reasons otherwise)
grace time is fake i stop flowing after time.

policy debates:

trichot is fake. debate the topic however u want, just be ready to win the fw/theory debate
i tend to look at uq frames the link a lot. think carefully about your uniqueness
terminalize your impacts pls! just saying "econ goes down" is not enough
spec-affs and cps are cool if done strategically
fine with condo but also receptive to condo bad
fine with pics but also receptive to pics bad
biased against cheaty cps (e.g. consult) but will vote on them
perm is not an advocacy, it's a test of competition
default to no judge kick, but can if told to
give me texts & read solvency

lay vs. tech

this is just a rant, skip it if you want. there is no real delineation between "lay" and "tech." everything in debate is just an argument. i don't see why debating solely the topic and solely in a "lay" way is uniquely educational, especially when all the evidence in parli is garbage and the topics are recycled from tournament to tournament. so i (as a debater not a judge) don't really like trad rounds. if parli was a space solely for learning about current events and policymaking, i would hate this space since it spreads misinformation more than anything else. i think parli should be a space to learn how to think critically and construct arguments critically. i like friv theory because it's fun to run and gets people thinking critically. i like ks for the same reason. i think if people stopped being so scared of certain arguments and just tried their best to engage, they'd stop hating different style of debate so much. that also means debaters should be accessible with their language and POIs.

theory:

i went for theory a lot. i can hang. just be accessible
default to competing interps
no default for drop the arg vs. debater. without an implication i can't eval the shell
reasonability is tough to win without a brightline
unpopular opinion: the rvi is underrated. just make it better than timeskew

kritiks:

don't make the k inaccessible
familiar with queer theory, basic cap, and a smidge of lacan
know some pomo (mostly baudy and a little dng)
do layering work. "prefiat > postfiat" isn't enough
disclose non t k-affs (in parli, rotb + alt is nice)
willing to vote on disclosure
tfw is strong, just be able to answer the prep-outs
extinction outweighs is strong, just win fw

funky tech:

explain the implications to phil if you're reading it
down for tricks, just read warrants
down to hear judge performance but tell me how to eval it
willing to vote on presumption triggers if warranted. don't create contradictions
my fav fruits are peaches

misc:

i flow poi answers and these are binding
call the poo. incorrect poo articulations will not be punished
2ar and 2nr get new weighing but earlier weighing beats it
2ar gets golden turns on new args + shadow extensions
i check back against golden turns by ensuring sufficient warranting
imo the 2ar is broken if you can weigh. i'd suggest flipping aff in front of me
i give speaks based on strategy. i might buy 30 speaks theory

everything in this paradigm is a soft default and can be changed if the right arguments are made in round.

final note:

this paradigm is long. i know. i make it this detailed because i don't want to underestimate 'novices'. if you don't understand half the stuff in this paradigm, that's fine! ask questions if you have them or just try your best to enjoy the debate and make the debate enjoyable for your opponents. i'll give in-depth feedback and disclose if allowed. good luck!

Rebekah Park Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 12:11 PM PDT

I'm a sixth-year debater and generally flay. I've only been debating in West Coast spaces for TOC. Flowing all speeches except for cx.

Spreading is fine, just be cohesive. (Or just drop speech docs)
I hate funky evidence ethics but I love indicts for those ethics! misreading or lying about cards will result in lowered speaker pts or an auto drop.
Tech > Truth

Argument expectations -

Extensions:

Collapse to make all of our lives easier, PLEASE. Extend necessary link chains and impacts during summary; if only one team extends, that’s essentially an automatic win. If neither team extends through summary, I’ll evaluate based on previous speeches but both teams will lose speaker points.

Weighing:

impact analysis/world comparison/weighing in general is more likely to win you the round. Remember to warrant phrases like "timeframe" and "magnitude" instead of just throwing them around. If only one team weighs that’s a massive advantage for them. If neither team weighs, I’ll evaluate the arguments based on my own knowledge which will likely result in a decision you don’t like.

Other:

Signpost/roadmaps:

Just do it. I am not exactly well known for my ability to flow capably, so tell me where I should be looking instead of leaving me to find it on my own.

Theory(PF):

I will only evaluate good theory, so if it's run badly it will be an auto drop. You will definitely have to convince me why I should be voting for your progressive arg vs. the res at hand.

That being said, I am a passionate proponent of anti-disclosure theory! It’s your freedom to disclose just don’t force it on others. I will not be voting off of disclosure unless the other team completely ignores their theory argument. Try to define all interps and responsibilities. have fun with it!

Novice: Just don't run theory/Ks

Evidence:

I'll probably ask you to drop the card if you can't find it in 5 minutes max. Do not lie about your cards, even if you miscut it. If I find that a team falsified evidence, depending on the severity it could result in an automatic win for their opponents and/or contacting tab and their coach.

Non-PF Debaters:

I have 0 experience with parli, LD, cx, congress, literally any type of debate other than pf. Please explain rules to me and keep your opponents accountable. However, if your opponents violate a certain rule, you will need to bring up the rule on the NSDA website or the tournament rules.

Sumya Paruchuri Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:19 AM CDT

hey im sumya! (they/them)

woodlands '25

please put me on the chain! have an email chain/speechdrop/file share if it's online-

woodlandssp@gmail.com

TLDR: Read whatever you want, I am a firm believer in trying to stay as tab as I can. The only time I think judge intervention is warranted is if there’s some form of an equity violation. Obviously do not read anything that is explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. Other than that, if you just extend a warrant and do proper weighing I am willing to vote on anything.

Shortcut

K- 1

K Aff- 1

Phil- 1

Theory- 3

T- 3

Tricks- 4

Trad/Lay- 1

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

general:

- tech>truth

- debate is a game with educational benefits

- don't make debate an unsafe place because i have no qualms voting you down for unethical behavior

- please be clear when you talk, it makes all of our lives easier, if you can't talk clear and fast, talk clear

- im willing to vote on anything as long as it's not discriminatory

- make sure to weigh! it's super important and really helps crystalize the round

- I LOVE META WEIGHING <3

- please make the round fun for you, and even better for everyone involved

- read literally anything you want, i probably am somewhat familiar with it

- for the love of all things holy, engage with the framing debate, unless you're both reading util, then please don't waste time on framing bc no one cares (unless it's like sv vs ext 1st)

- i love dense lit, so please read a phil case if you have it, dw about me not knowing your lit base bc a) you should be able to explain it in your case/cx/extensions b) i probably do know it

- dont over adapt for me, debate the way you want to

- yes i'll eval friv args if they're funny

- please make the round a little fun in some way, shape or form

- i probably sound very opinionated, but just do whatever's fun for you, because the round is for the debaters not the judge (except for trad debate, i'm probably going to silently cry)

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

speaks:

i'll probably give you higher speaks bc anything under a 28 is kind of an L tbh

here are some ways to increase speaks:

- be funny

- include a picture of your pet in the speech doc if there's an email chain

- give me a song rec that i'll listen to during prep and boost your speaks if i like it (for reference of my music taste, i was in the top 0.01% of conan gray listeners)

- do a little dance during your opponent's prep time

here are some ways to decrease speaks:

- being rude in round.

- making the round very messy and hard to eval.

- harassing your opponent during cx/being a hobbledehoy

- my #1 pet peeve is debate bros who are extremely aggressive and assertive, especially over gender minorities- don't let that be you

- if you read util the highest you're getting is a 29.9

- don't be discriminatory, ie. racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc

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

Specific things

K's:MY FAVORITE KIND OF DEBATE <3 lit ik- psycho (know it very well, i read it for funzies), Queer Theory (just not Edelman, I've never read a word he's written and i don't plan on it), Weheliye, Deleuze, Guattari,

K Aff: be T. be non-T. be T-adjacent. idc, just represent your lit well

Phil: love phil. authors I've read- Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Rawls, Plato, and others i'm forgetting

Theory: i hate spec shells. but i'll listen to them. good with theory, go for the rvi if you want, go for anything here. friv theory is funny idc what people say

T: for the love of pink please don't read nebel or leslie, I'll sob and then vote on it if you win the flow

Tricks: tricky hobbits- delinieate your spikes, have extrapolations that aren't too far out there- no im not going to vote neg bc they conceded the sand paradox which proves the world is a simulation.

people who've influenced me in debate-

Alex Yoakum, Isaac Chao, Alli Aldrige (some of my favorite debate people who are amazing)

my wiki for reference

if there are any questions feel free to ask me! i promise i don't bite

ALL EVENTS THAT AREN’T LD

I only have experience in LD and Poetry, and competed a tad in wsd, so I’ll only be able to base my judgement off of that

Anupama Patil Stratford Middle School - San Jose

Vidhi Patra Rancho Middle School

sandy dawn peterson Hire None

Sandy D Peterson Hire

Reba Prabhakhar Rancho Middle School

Xinzhou Qin Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Sawyer Rabalais ModernBrain

Ethan Ramos Hire

Last changed on Fri July 26, 2024 at 9:07 AM CDT

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day (AFA , IPDA , NFA) ... currently I'm a consultant teaching IE's at the university level (AFA)

PLZ treat your opponent and judge the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate or toxicity in debate
have any questions? feel free to ask
tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
I mainly judge College IE's and HS nat circuit PF - these are my absolute fav's
Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DON'T want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
IF USING HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (whether debate or public speaking event) , you need to address the 5 C's of historical analysis ... if not then this is for you ---> L

IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Usually Tech, however it all depends on what you run, if you're going to say things that are absolutely not true (holocaust never happened... etc) STRIKE ME - because if I have to go Truth I will have no problem telling you you're wrong and will make an example out of you

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

I value good strategy and refined rhetoric, if you have this you'll most likely get my ballot

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2024-2025 season!!

jyotsna rathore Joaquin Miller Middle School

Pranav Raval Stratford Preparatory School

Shobana Ravisankar Stratford Preparatory School None

Chloe Rong Stratagem Learning

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 6:00 AM PDT

Chloe Rong- DVHS 25' LD and Policy, did ms pf like 4 years ago

put me on the email chain: chloedebate777@gmail.com - label: tournament round #: pairing

Top

Be nice, have fun - a degree of aggression is fun, don't be straight up rude

tech >>> truth, dropped args presumed true - I care about the execution more

exceptions:

a. arguments that are egregiously offensive - just don't be racist :>

b. intentionally obfuscatory or arguments - I will vote on these (very reluctantly) but there is an incredibly low threshold of response

c. if I genuinely have no idea what you are even saying - debate is a communicative activity and if I cannot meaningfully understand you or your argument I won't vote off it. Also applies if your argument is incomplete, I won't pretend you said something you didn't - args have to have claim warrant impact

Speed - I am fine with spreading but clarity>speed always, I'll give you 3 clears before I simply give up. Refer to the previous point on why this matters.

I prefer when arguments in a round actively interact with one another, if you blockfile hack i will be very sad :/

insert rehighlights, read recuttings

run what you're comfortable with instead of following my arg preferences, at the end of the day preferences are just preferences and I'll evaluate the round off the flow

misc

online - record speeches locally if online, flash analytics if possible

I will reward you if you make it fun - ex: high-risk strategies such as 7 minutes of case turns, etc.

extra speaks if you attach a distorted cat photo to the top of your speech doc :>

Prefs:

LARP: 1

K: 2-3

Theory/Topicallity:2-3

K affs:4

Phil: 5

Trix: . .

Policy

Topicality - I enjoy these debates, usually prefer reasonability if the aff isn't clearly abusive but you can sway me otherwise. Have good evidence, do good comparison and you will have my heart - DON'T SPREAD THROUGH THE LBL

Impacts - weigh em

Ks on the Neg - Im good on Ks and ran them pretty often - just explain it well. I prefer Ks that actively interact with the affirmative. Try not to only read off a blockfile and contextualize everything in round

K affs - not the best judge for this. Don't read planless if you want me to vote for you. Im good for topical K affs.

default to util if no alternative FW is provided

Theory

Most are reasons to drop the arg not the team but if that's dropped I'll vote on it - condo is probably good unless there's heavy abuse. Its always a valid 2ar but I probably won't vote off of like 1 or 2 condo.

If I judge a fairness bad argument I will immediately vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness :D

Nishantha Ruwan Academy of Higher Learning None

Chris G Ryan Hire

Rohan Sachdev Hire

Last changed on Mon July 22, 2024 at 4:44 AM PDT

People in stitches over hilarious dog who looks permanently ...

TL;DR:Tech over truth, establish the comparative, do the link and impact weighing

Hey y’all, I’m Rohan (he/him) and I did varsity Parli for 5 years with nueva. These days, I'm doing APDA at the University of Chicago.

Random musings:

Presentation really doesn't matter to me: rhetorical flair is cool but it isn't going to help or hurt you on my ballot. I don't care what you are wearing or if you have your camera on or anything like that, please don't run theory on that sort of stuff.

I will disclose unless the tournament forbids it.

A warrant can take forms–I don’t have any defaults on whether to prefer analytics/empirics etc but I’m not gonna flow something which you assert to me, back it up with something. You don’t need a citation on every point, but if you tell me that the economy is gonna go up, you have to tell me how that happens.

I autoextend all plantexts, advocacies, ROB texts, and procedural interpretations. You have to extend everything else, but I don't think it makes sense to drop someone for omitting the words "extend the alternative." This is important for you because it means I won't kick your text for you, you have to explicitly tell me to do that.

Go as fast as you want; I'll slow you if I have problems.

Case:

Anything goes really: interesting and innovative boosts speaks but the heg DA is also fine.

I default to: magnitude>probability>timeframe>anything else.

Structural violence framing boosts speaks.

Have blocks for mutual exclusivity on your counterplans.

I have read and answered condo; I don’t really lean one way or the other. Pretty much goes the same way for all the CP theory stuff: I’ll evaluate everything so just be prepared to justify what you do.

Kritiks:

Love them; was primarily a cap debater as an upperclassman and messed around with some anarchism alternatives as a sophomore. Read a lot of decolonial authors (Fanon, Tuck & Yang, etc.) as well. Anything else is gonna need a thesis.

Reading a K does not absolve you with the responsibility to provide an alternative with (real) solvency. The best Ks draw from the praxis and organizing of real world movements. I'm not voting for "vote neg to reject xyz."

I probably lean (60-40) towards the K-aff against T-FW.

Theory/T:

Interps must be read twice and slowly with texts in chat.

I don't have anything against friv theory. I still don't know what a friv theory shell is. If it's friv then you should have no trouble beating it.

Defaults:

CI > Reasonability: reasonability will be dropped without an explicit briteline
Theory is drop the debater
Theory is apriori
RVIs are good
Accessibility > education > fairness > anything else
Text of the interp > spirit of the interp

Golsa Sadrieh Beverly Vista Middle School None

Subrata Saharoy Joaquin Miller Middle School

Vishal Saxena Stratagem Learning None

Rayan Sengupta Hire

Lucy Shah La Reina

Anthony Shen Redwood MS

Abdrahman Sheriff Athens Debate

Rohit Shrivastava Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Michael Shurance Athens Debate

Last changed on Thu May 9, 2024 at 3:38 AM PDT

Michael Shurance

Debate Paradigm:

Framework:

Debate is a game. I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently racist, sexist, or discriminatory in some fundamental sense which makes debate inaccessible. AGAIN INACCESSIBLE: An example of these would obviously be like (white supremacy, nazism/racial superiority,) I will drop anyone advocating for those positions. We all deserve respect and fairness.

Theory:

Theory is fine if theres actually abuse from the Aff (topicality, specs, ect) , or the neg, (such as a condo, or a pic). I will vote on a good theory. I generally don't think theory operates A prior unless it's about specific abuse, but if you say it operates a prior, and they don't dispute it, then it operates a prior. If its not then its a normal off case position that arguments for different rules and standards that my vote would help promote. Multiple theories are not good. If theres abuse, run a theory, and if you want to enforce a interpretation, run a theory non a prior, if it seems prepped im more suspicious. Don't time skew on purpose. I don't believe you should generally "drop" theories, but you can.

K's:

If the K links into the AFF's solvency, or their plan text in some fundamental sense, then its acceptable. The alternative needs to exist, and you have to explain why I shouldn't buy a permutation. A k without an alternative is just a harsh judgement of the status quo, which the aff likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that passing the plan text leads to not being possible its just a try or die for the aff.

Aff K's

In order to run a K on the aff you need to prove that the resolution is so messed up; that you are ethically bond to not defend it, and that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by either your solvency, or by avoiding having to defend the resolution. It's a huge uphill battle, and ill likely vote neg on presumption.

Advocacies are not conditional in an ideal world, if you kick out off an advocacy Im much more skeptical on the aff as to why you needed to break procedural fairness in the first place, and may vote you down. Everytime you kick out of an advocacy you work against the K you ran, making it seem trivial or insincere. Its a slap in the face on people who actually have convictions about their kritiks. I generally don't believe you should argue strongly for K's you don't have conviction about, especially on the aff, and because you don't believe the framework means that my vote for the advocacy would have also been insincere which 1. hurts your solvency/ 2. destroys your movement. which turns your K into handwashing, and nothing more then a useless academic exercise.

Speed:

talking fast is fun, speeding is semi fine, but if you get slowed or clear'd please comply. I think access is very important.

Ballot:

Flow is very important on how I judge, whether or not your opponent did a good job attacking your position or argument weighs heavily in my mind. Key arguments are more important then quantity, but if you have alot of arguments ill weigh them as well. I really like case debate, if you can seek out and find clash you'll be rewarded for it.

Speech Paradigm:

Be polite and persuasive/funny/engaging with your speech, as hard as it is, try and be happy/excited to be here, and excited to share your speech/worldview/story.

I will likely judge heavily based on performance.

Anoop Singh Joaquin Miller Middle School

Paramvir Singh Stratford Preparatory School None

Ramanuj Singh The Golden State Academy

Ansh Singhal Hire None

Zachary Sinha Hire

Anne Smith Hire

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 12:23 PM PDT

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

Katelynn Smith Athens Debate

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 7:33 AM CDT

My background consists of doing PF debate for a year and LD debate for 3 years. I am a traditional LD debate judge, as I am from West Texas where that is the primary type of debate. I was apart of the NSDA, TFA, and UIL circuits, where I competed in a variety of tournaments at the local, regional, and national level. I currently attend Texas Tech University where I am active within the Student Government Association and various other student organizations.

As a judge in a traditional LD debate, my primary role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both sides and determine which side made the more compelling case. I will base my decision on the quality of the arguments, the strength of the evidence presented, and the persuasiveness of the speakers.

I believe that the most important aspect of any debate is the clash between the two sides. I want to see both sides engage with each other's arguments and respond to each other's points in a way that advances the debate. I appreciate when debaters demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic and the issues at stake, and can articulate their ideas clearly and concisely.

In terms of argumentation, I expect debaters to provide well-reasoned and logically coherent arguments, supported by relevant evidence. I am not swayed by emotional appeals or unsupported claims. I prefer to see debaters engage with the complexity of the issues, rather than relying on simplistic or reductionist arguments.

I also value effective communication skills, such as clear enunciation, good pacing, and appropriate use of body language. I appreciate when debaters are respectful and professional towards each other, and towards me as the judge.

In terms of the format of the debate, I expect both sides to follow the standard LD structure, with clear and coherent introductions, contentions, and rebuttals. I expect both sides to stay within their allotted time limits and to respect the rules of the debate.

Ultimately, my goal as a judge is to fairly evaluate the arguments presented by both sides and determine the winner based on the strength of their arguments and their overall performance in the debate.

Diane Song Hire None

Kiran Sontakke Stratford Middle School - San Jose None

Shashidhar Srinivasa The Golden State Academy

Aarya Srinivasan Hire

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 11:24 AM PDT

What’s up! my name is Aarya Srinivasan and I’m a junior at Archbishop Mitty.

Add me to the email chain: aaryasrinivasan25@mittymonarch.com

I have done three years of varsity speech and debate, and I have competed in the events Policy, LD, Parli, Congress, IX, and Impromptu.

My judging paradigm is mostly just offense/defense, but if both sides want a slow round I will judge it lay.

Since my main event is policy, I am tech over truth, which means that I will believe anything you say in the round regardless of how true it is in the real world as long as it is argued well. Spreading is chill, but I dislike irrational link chains so make sure that there aren’t some crazy gaps in between your cards. If both sides do NOT agree on a fast round, RUN THEORY!

For my preferences, I enjoy listening to logical and complex arguments backed up by well researched evidence. Quality Cards are KEY, make sure that you do not mistag or misrepresent your evidence. Know the warrants to your cards, if you can’t explain WHY something is the case you’re prolly not gonna be very convincing. I will not judge intervene to disqualify bad evidence/lying, but I will likely drop your speaks.

Also, it’s no fun to watch a round where nobody clashes, so make sure that you call out specific arguments your opponents made and then respond to them. I also like to see debaters have a command of the topic, so be confident and passionate when you’re speaking. And above all, be nice, and have some fun.

If you have any other questions about how I'll evaluate the round, just ask.

LD/PF/Parli:

Not super experienced with any of these events, but TRUST I will understand whatever you decide to run. I more or less know about the PF and LD topics, but still explain your points clearly.

Tricks are cool - if you're going against them run theory I'll vote on it. Also you can run an RVI vs the theory I'll vote on it if its good enough cuz it disincentivizes frivolous theory.

K's and Phil is cool just explain your phil well and explain how it contextualizes the round don't just vomit a ton of lit at me and expect me to give you the win.

CX is super important, I don't necessarily flow it, but it helps speaks a lot.

Write my ballot in the final focus. Makes my job easier lol.

POLICY SPECIFICS:

These are guidelines. Don’t change what you’re running after reading this, this is just to know some of my opinions on things. Run what you know, and can debate best.

I will vote on literally anything (Death Good, Spark, Nihilism, Warming Fake, etc.) Just debate it properly.

Theory - Love theory debates on the Aff and Neg. Reasonability is not a response, you have to explain why it’s reasonable. But go ahead and be as dirty as you want lol debate is a game, if you can defend your interpretation of debate I’ll vote on it.

T - I love T. Affs that barely connect to the topic are pain to debate, so go ahead and try to penalize them by running a good T shell.

CP - Run literally whatever, but be able to defend yourself if you run a Process CP or PIC. I ran 4th Branch and White Supremacist CP all year so I love a good cheaty CP, and the resulting theory debate too.

K - Be very clear on Framwork, Alt, and ROB. I have experience with Set Col, Cap, Security/Militarism and Model Minority. Anything else will likely need you to explain yourself in plain terms, If I don’t understand the lit terms you’re using I cannot vote for you.

K -Affs - Don’t have an issue with these. Make sure to have a good response on the ROB vs Ballot Pic because that’s what I end up voting on a lot of the time.

DA - These are pretty standard. UQ, Link, I/L, Impact.

Case - I feel like the case debate is a lost art. So many Affs have terrible link chains. Solvency Takeouts and Link Takeouts are great and can literally be made as analytics to decimate an opponents case and force them to waste time by clarifying in their next speech. Go for Thumpers on literally every extinction impact. Impact Turns are also really fun.

Srini Sunkara Redwood MS

Charlie Synn Del Mar Montessori School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:26 PM PDT

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Rohan Tawade Crystal Springs Uplands School None

Varsha Thalange Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Audrey Tsai Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Wed August 9, 2023 at 12:13 PM PDT

Hi! I'm in my fifth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team. I've solely debated in west coast circuits other than TOC. Flay (flow all speeches other than cross)

TLDR (READ THIS): Be polite, follow PF rules and evidence ethics, and have fun. The best rounds are when both teams can vibe together.

Tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments or link chains that just logically don't make sense)
Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be (I'll just drop the card after a few minutes)
Send the fully cut card
Good cards > good analytics > bad cards > bad analytics
No "debater math." Seriously I will drop the card
Fully extend (links and impacts with the card name) in summary and FF or I'll drop the argument
Please weigh (more detail below)
Collapse!!
Just signpost and provide a brief offtime roadmap to make all our lives easier
Theory, speed, evidence, discrim stuff below in more detail

General Preferences:

Time yourself. Turns can be extended on their own as long as your opponent also extends the contention you're turning, otherwise you have a bit more work to do about extending their link + impact. Voting on clever turns is really fun for me, just make sure to explicitly say "link/impact turn" so I flow it as offense.

Some of my favorite rounds to debate and judge have been because of interesting framing. Ideally, frameworks would be brought up in constructive but rebuttal at the latest. If no framework is brought up, I'll default to utilitarianism. Personally, I think frameworks about things like structural violence can be really effective if done correctly (tell me why it's so important), and good critiques of util can be really interesting. I love well-implicated overviews and interesting definitions, just make sure to explain them.

Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world, and no one wants that. Metaweighing is cool, I think more teams should metaweigh but it's not a huge deal if you don't.

Speed:

If you spread, I want your speech docs (send them to your opponents too if they ask). I will yell CLEAR if I can’t follow. Do NOT spread in novice. Regardless of your speed, please speak clearly.

Evidence:

Bad evidence will get dropped and if the evidence ethics is really bad, it may result in an auto drop, but you have to point out faulty evidence to me; otherwise I won’t evaluate it. Indicts are amazing if you're clear about them.

I won’t intervene unless I really have to, and I’ll take your evidence at face value (unless the evidence ethics is so bad it’s incomprehensible), so you have to indict the evidence if there’s any problem with it and directly tell me if you want me to call for it/evaluate it. There's no need for me to be part of your email chain/doc share unless there are evidence ethics violations.

Progressive arguments:

Novice: Do not run theory or Ks unless there is a really egregious violation. I will not vote on disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory in novice, that’s really exclusive to the debate space and it’s not suitable for a novice pool.

Varsity: Theory and Ks are fine. I think the critical evaluation of debate is really important but you still have to convince me why I should prefer your progressive argumentation over the resolution. At the highest levels of debate (TOC, nats, high elims), I’m more inclined to vote on anti-paraphrasing but I usually won’t vote on disclosure unless it really is a norm at that specific tournament and it’s very well argued.

Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round!

William Turner ILearn Education

Wyllene Turner Able2Shine

MANOJ UNNIKRISHNAN Redwood MS

Agam Vasani The Golden State Academy

Eduardo Velazquez ModernBrain

Aishi Vijayaraghavan Hire

Mitu Walia Brooks Debate Institute

Lydia Wang BASIS Independent Silicon Valley

Ewan Webster Woodside Priory School

Last changed on Thu July 25, 2024 at 4:19 AM PDT

TLDR bc this paradigm is hella long: Tech, weigh, warrant everything, try not to spread

Email: itswebster2@gmail.com

I'm a Senior at Woodside Priory in CA, 5th year competing in PF, 3rd year coaching PF, this paradigm is set up for PF judging.

Fake Flow / Flay / Fake Flay / Fake Fake Flow. I'm basically a flow (trust). I don't like theory much but I'll evaluate it. K's confuse me, and i'll try to evaluate them. Frameworks are great, tricks are fine but lazy.

Spreading is goofy, I'll flow but I'll also tank your speaks, it doesn't matter if you send me a speech doc.

General Stuff❗:

Tech over truth if it's got an actual link and it's not a blatant lie.

Please don't assume that I understand the ins and outs of any given topic, and don't just drop a stock tagline and expect me to know the argument, I want actual warranting on everything.

Squirrelly args: great if they're warranted, I like sand mafia or trucking impacts.

Warrants: I need a thought out and explained warrant for everything. I will vote for the team that has strong, warranted responses / extensions in round over the team that sends me a speech doc and then spams at 350 wpm.

Weighing: Do it. Probability weighing is not weighing, I want to see actual evaluation of the impacts, not how likely they are to happen. You can evaluate probability but there should be actual weighing as well. Also, you can say the weighing mechanism, but try to go further. If you just say "timeframe" and move on, I probably wont evaluate it, because it doesn't have a warrant. If you want to win on a turn, implicate and weigh it the same way you would with a contention.

In general + specifically the debt topic: Recent economics cards: inflation cards and whatnot should be cited with month and day, don't just give me the year of publication: as recent as possible.

Interaction: If there is no interaction whatsoever, at least on my flow, I'll always default to NEG, and both teams will get relatively low speaks.

Progressive Debate: Again, theory fine, k's are not. I do not enjoy theory but I'll still flow it. K's bamboozle me and I have no clue how to evaluate them (my bad). I'll give extra speaks if you successfully run something like shoe theory. However, don't run progressive args against obvious novices. DISCLOSURE THEORY SUCKS, I don't mind disclosure, but judging a disclosure theory round is torture. But if you win it, I'll reluctantly vote on it. Also if the team proves they're breaking a new case I drop the shell. Also, running an incredibly long shell in rebuttal DOES NOT give you permission to spread, it was your choice to run the shell, don't act like your only option is to spread.

Kritiks: know your literature. If you're just reading off some doc and you didn't actually put in the research and the hours, i'll be able to tell.

New Arguments: DO NOT bring up new points in 2nd Summary or Final Focus unless they were brought up in cross. Bringing up new evidence to back up a previous response is no good either. If you do it blatantly, I won't evaluate it. If you try to be sneaky about it, I'll either raise or drop your speaks depending on my mood.

Calling for Evidence: Go for it, don't steal prep while your opps find their evidence. If you want to call out the evidence, have at it, I just hope not to see a round where the only voter relies on the legitimacy of one card. I will never do my own research in round, and unless your opponent calls out evidence I'll evaluate it as true. If you send speech docs, I'll look through them to make sure there isn't any like blatant propaganda or sources from the 1800's, but that's about it. I'm not going to go to the wiki for your cases, if you want me to see them, do an email chain pls.

RFD: Generally I'll try to disclose at the end of the round, but the quality of the oral RFD may vary based on time constraints on ballot submission times / round schedule. If you want more in depth feedback, it will be in the RFD on tabroom. I will try to never just put "oral rfd" into the tabroom, because that is insanely bummy.

Debating non topical stuff: If both teams agree to debate another topic, I'll still judge it.

Crosses: I will not flow any cross speeches. I'll listen, but unless you bring it up during a subsequent speech, I won't evaluate anything said in the decision. If you do get a concession, just bring it up in the speech after and I will evaluate it in the round. Concessions are not them misspeaking or something minor like that, make sure the concession is an actual point of a link chain conceded by your opponents. If both teams ask to skip grand cross, we can just skip it and give yall some extra prep time.

Post-Round: My decision will be final, and I will disclose. If you don't agree with it, I understand, but please don't try to argue about it after I disclose. It's not productive, and it's usually just a drag for me, your opponents, and maybe even your partner. That being said, if you have questions about the decision, or you want some advice, feel free to ask away, and I'll do my best to answer it all. If you ask for pointers on your case, i'll give them to you and tell you how to improve.

Speaker Points:

Basically you start the round with 28 speaks, this will probably increase if you simply debate well in the round. Here are a few ways you can raise or lower your speaker points:

Pre speech: "Hello judge, my name is x and I am the x speaker for x school" is bum activity, I will drop your speaks (maybe, its not that deep tbh). Just tell me where you're starting on the flow and we're good to go.

Music: If you play something hype before your speech I'll raise speaks based on how good it is (i have a scaling system), prob don't let it go into your speech unless I can still hear you clearly. It better not be drake tho. I luv playboi carti

Food: Give me food and I'll raise speaks, eat food and I'll lower them. Don't try to give me food in a virtual tournament.

Funny theory/framing: If it's funny it'll probably up your speaks.

If you win off of tricks, it will be a low-point win.

Timing: Don't go too far over on speeches, don't try to steal any prep, and generally make the most of your time during speeches and cross. I'll be keeping track of time, but I won't hold up my phone or anything if you go over time because it's obnoxious. That being said, you should be keeping track of your opponents time usage and vice versa.

Speed: Going fast is ok, if you annunciate I will understand it. What is more important is making sure your opponents can understand it. If your opponents are obviously new to debate, I don't want to see very much spreading. If you are both at a similar level, talk as fast or as slow as you would like. Just make sure that you are speaking clearly. If I can't hear you, it's harder to make a fair decision, even if I don't necessarily tank your speaker points for it. Spreading sucks, only absolute goobers spread, don't do it if you value your speaks. If you spread and I can't hear you, I don't care if you send a speech doc, your speaks are getting tanked. If you're spreading *INTELLIGIBLY, I won't tank speaks depending on your opponents. Sometimes, spreading can be a way to escape the constraints of short speech times and give more nuanced and well researched arguments. Usually, it's just annoying.

Cross: You can be aggressive to a certain degree, but remember that it's just a debate, it's really not that deep, and there's no point in being rude. be chill. Its fine if cross gets heated, that's normal, but don't let it escalate into a shouting match. Also don't just have the final focus speaker go on mute during grand, i know you're stealing prep.

Lying and stuff: If you come into final focus and say "they completely dropped our turn on x" and then argue that you should win on it, when your opps gave like 3 extended responses to it, I'm not going to evaluate it as dropped, however I will "drop" your speaks (that's a pun). Also don't assume that I zone out during cross, I'll still pay attention, so if you say "they conceded x" when they obviously didn't during cross, I'll probably drop that point and tank speaks.

Ethics: Don't bring up a new carded response in second summary or either of the FFs. Don't just obviously google a statistic during cross. If you bring up a whole new point in FF that wasn't introduced during Grand Cross I'm not going to flow or vote off of it. If you're going to run Theory at least run it well, try to mask the fact that you probably just want an easy win and your actual cases are mid.

Disclosure good, disclosure theory rounds are unbearable. Disclosure theory sucks, if a team proves they didn't disclose because they're breaking a new case, I'll probably drop your shell. I'm more forgiving with funny shells tho. I do not care about powertagging, if the content of the card is not blatantly miscut, I don't really care if the tagline is an exaggeration. However, cutting evidence improperly is a lot worse, don't miscut cards or try to. I also don't care much for paraphrasing theory, but if you run it well i'll still vote on it. I personally don't have a problem with paraphrased cases as long as the card links are somewhere in there.

Inclusivity: If you are blatantly rude or offensive in round, you'll probably dip speaker points to below 27, or get dropped. Keep the round accessible, don't be a bum.

Non-PF Judging: I'll do my best to evaluate it off the flow. LD speech times and ethics debates scare me. Somebody please introduce progressive args into MUN.

Grace Wieland Westridge School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:09 AM PDT

Hey! I'm a flow judge with experience in PF, so I should be able to follow almost anything you can throw at me as long as it's well explained and warranted (but I'm better versed in more lay-adjacent debate). Be kind to your opponents; debate is only educational as long as it's accessible for everyone. BTW I will disclose my vote at the end of the round after I submit my ballot, and I will primarily give verbal feedback.

loop me into the card share at gracemwieland@icloud.com

General prefs:

tech > truth

cut cards > paraphrasing

sticky defense < non sticky defense

Lay v Prog prefs:

Substance/Lay rounds:

I'm equipped to judge a lay round in any event
In LD and Policy, you should consider me a flay judge. In PF, you can consider me a tech judge.
I think in depth substance rounds are some of the most fun you can have in debate - look to the "how I evaluate" of my paradigm and you'll do great
Honestly I really enjoy substance rounds
Have fun and the winning will do itself

Theory:

I'm familiar(ish) with theory but I never ran it during my debate career
Anti disclosure, neutral on paraphrasing
I'm not a huge fan of theory in general, but I don't mind evaluating it and I obviously won't hack against it
Don't run friv theory with me judging. I don't think it's funny, I just think it's kind of mean to your opponents.
I will vote off of "my parents/coach won't let me" for disclosure, and I will vote of off "we're novices and had no idea this was a growing norm, don't downvote us because we didn't know" -> Theory is to make debate a more equitable place, not to punish novices and small schools that just didn't have the same access to the circut
TLDR: Don't read prog on inexperienced kids- it won't lead to better norms or discourse, it's just not nice.
I'm also not a huge fan of disclosure theory when the violating team does some form of disclosure (ex. if their contact info is on the wiki, if they send full cases and evidence before round starts, round reporting theory when they disclose cut cards already, etc)
I usually think shells should be read after the first instance of the violation (and counter interps should be read after the interp) but honestly if your opponents don't specify that you must respond in the next speech then I default to in-round arguments.
IMPORTANT NOTE: If in round you feel actively unsafe / uncomfortable, you don't need to pull out a shell to deal with that - send me a quick message on the email I have at the top and I'll stop the round. Debate isn't productive if you feel unsafe.

Ks:

I honestly do really enjoy K rounds
My PF partner and I ran FEM IR, but I'm also familiar with the literature of cap K's, sec K's, setcol K's, and queer K's.
I am a PFer, so I'm not super familiar K affs and performance K's. If you want to run either, just give a lot of judge instruction throughout the round and write my ballot for me. I'm more experienced with Ks run on neg/ Ks with a clear link to the aff
Make your link, impact, alt, and ROTB/ ROTJ very clear throughout the round. ROTB is like the ultimate framework -> I look to that first when evaluating
If you're running T framework, please run it well. Blippy T framework is a nightmare for everyone involved.
I think Ks can sometimes be run poorly/ people run them just to run prog - if you're running a K, please make sure it has a link, impact, and alt (and that you extend them). Its pretty obvious when people are running Ks they don't understand, and if you can't articulate the crux of the K to me, I won't vote on it.

Other Prog:

I'm not a big fan of picks but go for it if you want to
Similar with tricks- not the hugest fan of tricks but like if you and your opponent are down for it go ahead.
I really don't love sparks or dedev but again if you feel like it and your opponents are down then I'm down.
counterplans and plans are fine if they're allowed in your event. I really don't like PECs because they kill clash and aren't that fun but once again run it at your own risk- if you want to run it and your opponents are ok with it then I'll judge it.

Notes:

- I <3 squirrelly arguments -> run a non-stock arg well and I'll boost your speaks by 2 pts

- I can go up to 250 wpm comfortably if you have good enunciation. If you're not sure about the quality of your enunciation, just send a speech doc to be safe. (For K's specifically, I can go 300 if you slow down significantly for tags and speed up for the actual content of the card) if you're going faster than that, send a speech doc.

- 15 sec grace period and then I stop flowing

- I don't consider cross unless you bring it into one of your speeches - but if you have a really excellent cross, I'll boost your speaker points

- Off time roadmaps are appreciated

- I <3 overviews and underviews. it's just a stylistic thing I enjoy, and I think it can be strategic in a lot of rounds.

- extending through red lines isn't technically against any rules, but if your opponents call you out for it and extend their initial response I'll cross off your extension from my flow

*a note on speaks: I don't take speaker points off for stuttering, lack of eye contact, very high or very low expression, standing vs sitting, etc (for accessibility reasons.) The best way to boost your speaks is to have good coverage and write my ballot for me. Tell me: Where is the easiest place for you to win?

Process of evaluation:

T fw (if applicable)
ROB (if applicable)
FW / pre-req, link in's, short-circuts
Impact weighing
Unweighed offense you extended and have access too (I won't do the weighing for you, so if you don't weigh I just go off of the quantity of what you still have access too)
Evidence (only if I need to. Most of the time I won't look at the evidence unless there's card clipping or really intense misconstruing)

In depth notes on this:

I look to the framework first, if there is any (if you're getting framed out of your argument, it doesn't matter if you have better access or weighing)
I look to weighing immediately after framework -> good weighing can win you a round with me. Some notes on weighing: your weighing should always be comparative. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents impacts, and warrant them. If you can get weighing in 1st rebuttal, that'd be great, but I'd like weighing to be in speeches by 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. For weighing in 2nd rebuttal, it doesn't need to be lengthy, just about 10 seconds of analysis that your partner can elaborate on in their 2nd summary.
I then look to extensions but ESPECIALLY FOR OFFENSE (I'm kind of a stickler for extensions - if you don't extend your contention, I'm not flowing that you have access to it) THIS INCLUDES EXTENDING AND WEIGHING TURNS. I should hear your argument in every speech after it's introduced if you want it to be a reason I vote for you.
Having conceded defense on your case doesn't neccesarily mean you loose the round -> if your opponent has less or the same amount of offense (access to case/turns) I default to the weighing.
That being said please try to not have conceded defense on your case if possible -> it makes my job easier when evaluating the round.

Speaks:

-I have a pretty high threshold for speaks (I really only give a 27 or below if there's problematic rhetoric the speech, or if you drop your opponents entire case or something like that. You'll probably get an 28+)

-if you want to boost your speaks I think it's pretty fun when you interact with your opponents rhetoric or metaphors. If they have a power line that you can twist in your favor, I'll boost your speaks.

-let me know if I'm judging your 4-1 bracketed round -> I'll boost the speaks of whichever I drop so they're not in the 4-2 screw.

Things that will win you a lay round with me:

-pleasesignpost I'm literally begging you. ESPECIALLY if you're going fast -> make sure I know where you are on the flow.

-warrant! Telling me that something "just is" a certain way is not very persuasive - you should be able to tell me WHY your evidence is true and HOW your contentions would metabolize if I voted for you.

-you have to implicate. like I can't exaggerate how important it is to implicate. for each piece of defense you extend, you need to tell me why I should believe your response more than your opponents' argument, what your response means in the context of the round, and how your response changes your opponents' ability to frontline/backline.

-extend in every speech. Your extensions don't need to be more than 15 seconds in PF or 30 seconds in LD or Policy, but PLEASE EXTEND. I will not flow your contention through if you don't mention your unqness, link, and impact in your speech -> ex. if you flow your link but not your impact or unqness, I will not flow that you have access to any part of your contention but your link.

-weigh!!!!

-I'll give you 30 speaks if you make a good joke (that isn't mean to your opponents and is sensitive to the topic at hand)

Max Wiessner Honor Academy

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:49 AM PDT

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail .com

email chain > speech drop/file share

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

about me:

4th-year policy debater at CSUF (I also do IEs: poi, poetry, ads, ca, and extemp). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching LD and policy, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates. I would consider myself a K debater, but I’ve run all types of arguments and have voted for all kinds of arguments too

Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.
More than 5 off creates shallow debates. Don't feel disincentivized to add more pages, just know better speaker points lie where the most knowledge is produced. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, Toya, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, JBurke, Tay Brough, Vontrez White, Brayan Loayza, JMeza, Bryan Perez, Diego Flores, Cmeow

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

DA/CP combo:

CPs are fun. Impact calc is key, how does the impact of the DA supersede AFF solvency claims?

K’s:

I usually run/most familiar with arguments relating to set col, antiblackness, racial cap, bio/necropolitics, and/or queer/trans theory, so those are the lit bases I know best. Just EXPLAIN your theory as if I know nothing bc I might not (pls don't just namedrop a philosopher and expect me to know them)

Are we having a debate about debate? survival methods? education models? life? make that clear

K on the NEG: don't fall behind on the perm debate. Contextualized/specific links good. Severance is definitely bad, both on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to prove that it happened.
Policy v K: I love judging clash debates. I think these are maybe the best for topic education (unpopular opinion). FW should be a big thing in these debates. What's my role? What's urs?
KvK: I love a method v method debate, but they can get messy and unclear, especially in LD so please focus on creating an organized story. I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me, so I expect a clear explanation of what's going on to avoid the messiness/unclearness

FW v K’s:

I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts matter just as much as the ones that come from a plan text bc debate is ultimately a performance.

Education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate. That means (procedural) fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. Clash and education are more persuasive.

Counter-interps are key for the AFF to win the education debate. So is some sort of "debate key" or "ballot key" argument

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", and I looove creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level

if I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

- also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Misc:

DO NOT steal prep. The timer goes off, stop typing/writing, and (depending on the format) send the doc or get ready to start speaking/flowing.

I will not connect things that are NOT on the flow, I'm gonna quote Cmeow's paradigm here bc they got a point "I read evidence when I'm confused about something, and I usually will do it to break the tie against arguments, or I will read ev if it's specifically judge instruction and something I should frame my ballot on. But, I will never ever make decisions for debates on arguments that have not been made."

yellow is the worst highlight color. Don't feel like you need to re-highlight everything before the round, you won't be marked down. Just know if I make a weird face, it's the yellow...

and most importantly, slay

Thomas Xiao Hire

Lily Ye Hire

Krishna Yelisetti Dougherty Valley Bridge

Alfred Yeung Joaquin Miller Middle School

James Yu Bret Harte

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 3:01 PM PDT

Background: PF Debater at Leland (c/o 26), minor speech and CA LD experience.

add me to the chain: jameesyu@gmail.com

TLDR: tech>>>truth. Debate is a game. I try to be tabula rasa. Debate however you want, I’ll adapt to you. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. -> L-25. Overall, treat me as a typical tech judge. The stuff below goes over how I typically view rounds.

Fundamentals:

· Collapse in 2nd rebuttal. You must respond to all turns on offense and defense on the argument you collapse on.

· Weighing can start whenever, but must be in First Final or 2nd Summary. I will not evaluate new weighing in 2nd Summary. I am cool with probability weighing. Weighing must be comparative or I will not evaluate it. It is up to YOU to tell me what weighing I should prioritize (Metaweigh), however if not done generally I default to Prereq/Shortcircuit > Impact Magnifier > Try or Die > Everything else (Probability, scope severity, etc.) Weighing is really just top level terminal defense, so it is not required but it is very good to have.

· I don't flow cross. If you want to get something from cross on my flow, you must mention it in a speech.

· Send a doc if you're going over 250 wpm. If you don't and I can't understand you, I will stop flowing.

· Signpost everything. Roadmap can be as simple as "Aff, Neg" or "My case, their case" as long as you signpost properly (unless you're reading offs, then I would like "1 off, 2 off, substance" or something like that.

· Turns must be implicated! If you don't tell me why I prefer your turn over their link, I will treat the turn as a disad. I don't care if FDI causes corruption if the opponents still win offense which saves 100 million people. Don't leave it up to the judge to intervene.

· If your opponent's evidence is miscut, call it out and I'll look at it. I will only look at evidence if I am told to in round. Evidence must be carded. If not, my bar for responses is super low. By the way, idc about parphrasing as long as you have a cut card to back up the rhetoric. This doesn't mean I'll hack against para theory.

How I make a decision: Look first at Weighing debate -> Look at Defense -> Look at offense (As long as you win weighing and offense you win).

On Progressive Args - I can and will evaluate them. My bar for responses to friv theory is very low. I generally default CI and no RVIs but it is up to you to tell me what I should say prefer for your round. Wining No RVIs does not mean your opponents can't win off the CI. If you are trying to determine the best norms in debate, then if their CI norms are better they should win.

For more info on how I evaluate rounds, some of my biggest mentors in debate are Aniket Mittal, Daniel Xie, Jeannine Yu, and Ananth Menon. You can look at their paradigms.

Post-round me if you think my decision was bad; As long as it is done respectfully I'm open for it. Speaks should average 27.5-28.5. If you are a good debater you'll easily get 29+ speaks. Lowest I'll prob go is 26. I'll disclose decision and rfd after round if the tournament allows.

Good Luck!

Eric Yue Bret Harte

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:53 PM PDT

Hey,

Call me eric or judge, i use he/him pronouns, im a varsity parli main at leland, i know other debate events though! (less of policy lol)

General things:

more flow than lay
All debaters should adjust to the slowest preferred pace by the panel of judges

If you have 1 lay and 2 flows, go lay

general speaks are around 27.5-28
I will follow the tournament rules and disclose accordingly if allowed
tech>truth, will evaluate whatever args you throw at me though you have to explain things clearly if i may not know background.
I wont call for evidence, it is up to the opponents to question unwarranted and suspicious arguments

If you dont question it, i will default to believing the evidence as true

I like to flow on paper, so let me know if you want me to flow on a diff sheet
i usually wont flow cross, but i will listen to them :D

What I like, thus what you should do:

Sign postings,
road maps,
clear introduction/transition to a different subject,
EXPLANATIONS AND ELABORATIONS (if you don't explain, I will not buy them),
A few flushed out contentions instead of like 8 different short contentions with no evidence, explanations, impacts, etc
clear background info

Like if topic is war in Jordan or something, I'm sorry... but I'm def not the most knowledgeable about what you are saying if you dont give background info

theory is like... okay, i guess, not the most well versed in technical debate, but run theory if you explain them well enough with clear impact

What I don't like:

Any rude, racist, sexist, or discriminatory comments of any sort, I will tell tab if you do any of the things I mentioned here
Laughing at opponents or even your partner (excluding LD ofc)
I am okay with spreading I guess, but if either I or the opponent(s) say "slow" or indicate that you are going too fast, then you should slow down.
The Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated

Debate is an educational and chill activity and everyone here wants and deserves to learn and grow in a safe and protected environment, if you violate that and prevent that from happening, I will use my powers as a judge (and I don't want to do that to anyone)

Feel free to have a casual conversation with me before/after the round (if I don't have a round to get to) about any of my experience as a debater and I have some interesting stories that I can tell LOL

Good luck and Have fun :D

Sadaf Zahoor Stratagem Learning

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2024 at 12:30 AM PDT

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

Sophia Zhang Egan Junior High School None

Victor Zhang Stratagem Learning None

William Zhang Alannah Debates

Yali Zhang Joaquin Miller Middle School

Login to Tabroom

CHSSA Middle School State Championship

2023 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges