Freshman Deathmatch Round Robin
2023 — Online, US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideDebate
Klein Collins '24
I have been doing Speech and Debate for 6 years, I've competed in extemp, congress, oratory, informative, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and impromptu; however, I'm well versed in prose and poetry I have experience as a judge and will judge fairly and base ranks solely on performance in rounds.
Extemp:
Try to have an organized speech with a clear Line of Reasoning(LOR). I want to be able to understand what you say clearly. I understand that stuttering happens, so I won't hold it against you unless it's excessive and prevents me from understanding what you're talking about. Time is key, try to put as much in as you can without too much repetition and make sure to include sources with their dates, I appreciate at least 4 different sources and dates can be as simple as " January of 2023". Being confident is very important in rounds so be assertive when you speak. Also, make sure you're not trying to debate, be conversational and engage the audience, professionally of course.
Congress:
Sponsorship- Have a well-prepared speech that supports the affirmative side. Make me understand the docket and why I should agree with your side. Offer strong points and have relevant evidence to support your claim. Be clear with your arguments and set up the round for future speeches.
Speeches- Have a good LOR and bring new points along when possible. I appreciate clash when applicable because it gives you greater credibility. If you're able to prove someone else wrong, I suggest you take that chance because I do think that's the point of this debate. Although I appreciate clash, do not make that your whole speech, you need to offer some sort of new idea or evidence that hasn't been as emphasized.
Presiding Officer- I will be assessing how you handle time and address mistakes. Have a clear precedence and recency chart in whatever manner you prefer. Also, I like when the P.O. is effective and watches time well. Be confident in your role, make sure you are the one controlling the round, don't let the chamber run the round. You should also be well informed/ understand the procedures and times well.
Questioning- Questions should be respectful and not used just because you need speaker points. Make sure you have questions that you think could be beneficial to yourself/ your side in the round.
Precedence- I suggest you watch your precedence, make sure you don't waste it. Be strategic in how you choose to spend it; however, I won't dock you on it.
Oratory:
For oratory, I want to be able to enjoy the presentation. Humor is great, but if you don't have humor, that's fine. I like seeing students walk based on their points, and want to see a clear connection between your points and resolution. I understand it is tough to memorize such speeches; however, since this event is based on memorization, I will dock you if there is visible distress or pauses.
Impromptu
I understand the short prep time and therefore, don't have many problems with impromptu. Since it is a speech event, I want to be able to see your personality and understand your point of view and LOR.
Lincoln Douglas
Don't spread, but I appreciate speed.
Speech doc + make fun of me for using yahoo + postrounding virtually: abaner@berkeley.edu
I did LD back in high school (couple of state wins + T20 NSDA + T20 NCFL). I do NPDA at Cal now (won NPTE Nationals 2023 [carried by partner moment]). I coached James Logan LD last year.
TLDR
- Fine with any speed but if you're above 350 wpm please send a speech doc. Will shout clear/slow/loud if I need it.
- Willing to watch any debate y'all want to have. Idc what you run if you run it well.
- Powertagging is bad. Paraphrasing (cough cough pf) is nonideal. Evidence ethics is legit. I will do the whole autoloss + 20 speaker points thing if you stake the round on it.
- Speaks are probably sexist, classist, and or rascist. Read 30 speaks theory and I'll give both teams 30s.
- If the word ends with -ist and is bad, you shouldn't be it. Please. I will drop you and report you to tab. Also, please don't run afro-pess if you are nonblack. Zion, Joshua, and Quin do a wonderful job explaining why: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/#:~:text=In%20the%20words%20of%20Rashad,reduce%20Blackness%20to%20ontological%20nothingness.
- Weighing is nonnegotiable. Please. I have watched too many rounds withoutgood weighing. Please say one of the magic weighing words and then tell me why your mechanism is more important than your opponents/why you win under your mechansim. I default to SOL, then magnitude. But please please please weigh and metaweigh. Please.
- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE COLLAPSE I BEG YOU
- Parli: I protect but just call the POO (obviously doesn't apply to other events). I barely know the high school norms are for POIs but ask away I guess.
Other TLDR things that I've collected over the years that are just preferences and don't change how I'll vote, but change my happiness in the round.
-
Not a big fan of Nebel T :( I'll vote on it if you win it on the flow but like generally I'd much rather hear a debate about the substance of the aff plan vs you saying bare plurals + "this event being LD" means that the aff doesn't get the plan. Ideally, most sucessful debaters I've seen have read both and collapsed to whatever is cleaner
-
I'd rather vote on substance than blips which means that if you have a choice to collapse to a 10 second line vs a 2 minute card out of your 1AR (or MG, or whatever the correct thing is for you're event), be strategic and go for what's the easiest out, but it'd make me happier if you went for the substance.
- The more I coach and read postmodernism, the less I think I understand it. Maybe I'm getting dumber, but I swear it made more sense when I ran it in high school.
- Stop saying gut check. I don't know what gut check means in the context of a flow round. If something is improbable, give me a warrant about why it's improbable.
- My favorite rounds to watch/judge K vs Case, Case v Case and K v K. This season Holden and I have changed our neg strat to be T + K + Disad, but prior to this year most of my rounds in college are a mixture of K v Theory or K v Case. This means nothing about what you should do, and everything about what I find interesting. Do what you feel comfortable with, and I will vibe.
- Saying try or die <<< doing smarter collapsing to something else
Case:
Is super cool!
- I like new + fun arguements. Read some crazy DA, go for the impact turn, make a hyper specific aff. Case is one of the places I feel like creativity shines through the most, and I love hearing cool case arguements.
- Link you impacts back to framework pls (for LD only)
- Linear disads are annoying! If you are going to run one you need to explain the link differential a lot more clearly.
- Chill with counterplans (pls stop saying "NSDA rules mean no counterplans" and respond fr). Condo (/dispo) is probably good but willing to listen to theory.
- Will listen to any CP (cheaty CPs, PICs, etc.) unless explicitly told they are bad by a theory sheet.
- I believe that the aff burden is to prove a) why the plan is desirable and b) is better than the cp. I will judge kick -- I don't thinking collapsing to a turn on the counterplan means that you prove the plan is desirable, especially if the neg is allowed multiple conditional counterplans (given the aff doesn't read T).
- Perms are tests of competitions please stop saying you added an advocacy lol
- Weighing is super important in case v case rounds. The sooner you pick a framing and tell me why you win, the easier evaluating the round is.
Kritiks:
I've run Buddhism, Althusser, Foucault, and MLM (not as much MLM as other cal teams) mainly. I mostly run Buddhism. I've coached Set Col and Deleuze.
- Down for anything but the longer the average word length of the author you're reading is, the slower you need to go if you want me to understand.
- If you're alt starts with "I/We already ruptured the debate space so vote for us for fun" pls stop making the author of your lit base turn in their grave (if they have passed) or contribute to their sadness (if they are alive)
- I think K-affs need to win (a?) topic harm(s?) to justify why they are k-ing out, and on the neg you need to win a link to the aff.
- Specific links >>>>> generic links.
- Frameouts are legit and underutilized.
THEORY TO K BRIDGE! In a K vs FW T round, don't just say 'a prori' or repeat your apriori tag as a reason for your arg to be layered first. I've had too many rounds where I have no clue who is apriori because the clash was just both debaters saying "we are a prorir"
Theory:
As a top note, chill on the friv T! I'd rather not have to vote on shoe specc or tropicality again :(
- Defaults: competing interps > reasonability, text > spirit, acc abuse > potential abuse, drop the arg > drop the debater. As with all defaults, feel free to win the arguement on the flow and my mind changes.
- In a vacuum, I like RVIs. I think if you do them and win why you get RVIs (assuming the other team says you shouldn't), I will happilly vote on them.
- Check your interps before you read them -- I've been in far too many rounds where people have read "text > spirit" and then have accidently used the wrong wiki name (it changed!) or had something else wrong with their text
- Big fan of bidirectional T that's set up well in flex!
- (Parli:) MG theory is chill. Anything after that probably not. I heard PMR theory was cracked tho.
Phil:
I read all type of phil in high school. I've read all the common LD authors before (Kant, Habermas, Rawles, Virtue Ethics, Land Ethics, etc...) and some niche ones like Levinas.
- If it took you 2+ reads to understand your card because of the writing style, I will not get it on first listen. Either a) send me your case (should already be disclosed) and b) slow down and c) add explinations in your own words frequently
- Phil frameouts are insane and a huge part of what makes phil LD tick. When you're weighing, go the extra step don't just tell me why you're arguements link -- tell me why your opponents don't.
- Don't be shifty in cross when explaining your author
That was long. Ask me questions preround if you need to or send me an email. Feel free to postround too.
ty Ozan for this poem:
"weigh
i begged you
but
you didn’t
and you
lost
-rupi kaur"
Plano Senior '24, University of Maryland '28
Hey, my name is Jack, im a freshman at the University of Maryland and I competed for three years on the Texas circuit primarily in congress and extemp, though I am very proficient in most debate (competed in pf, ld, worlds) and interp events (competed in duo, oo, info, knowledge in most others as team was primarily interp focused).
Congress
I like to see a combination of both speaking ability and content/argument, but more argumentation and refutation is preferred. If you are going over the same points that someone else has and are not refuting other representative's points by the 4th speech, you are not adding anything to the argument, and that will be reflected in rankings.
State your points clearly and confidently, while backing them up with concise evidence from reputable sources. (Ex: NYT, Reuters, AP, etc.)
You should be done with all of your points and evidence by 2:45 and use the remaining time to conclude, try not to cram information into the last ten seconds of your speech.
I enjoy clash during speeches, if there is none, and you are not speaker 1-4, rankings will reflect.
Surface argumentation is fine, but I really want to see deep analysis of the legislation, hole poking and loopholes around the legislation are cool, but make sure they link back to the stock impacts listed in the round or if not then make sure you weigh so I know how to evaluate them compared to what everyone else is saying. Also make sure you present a net harm other than that to solidify your position if you run one.
If you argue neg and don't present a net harm, that is an instant drop because of the fact you do not have a plausible argument against the legislation. Please give me a reason to fail the bill that extends past the fact that it is not comprehensive.
I love amendments if a bill is bad or has little clash, introducing amendments on legislation can not only make it better for debate, but can add cycles if needed to make sure splits are good and more speeches can be gotten in. Typically in rounds I see people shy away from speaking on amendments because they are unexpected, but that is a whole part of congress-adapting to the round-and as such I will rank highly those competitors who may not expect the amendment to come about but speak on it anyway extemporaneously. Even if you have slightly worse fluency than normal, your adaptation and argumentation will be preferred in this scenario as such.
MAKE SURE EVIDENCE IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR SPEECH/ARGUMENT!!! Your argument should have logic as its base, and then use SOME evidence to balance it out and provide quantification and other data to support your claims/strengthen impacts.
At the end of the day, congress is an event in which you need to yes be prepared, but also be prepared to not be prepared. Adaptation and flexibility in round are what make some of the best congress competitors so great, and if you can do that and be active in the round, your ranking will absolutely reflect that.
Individual Events
Extemp:
Try to hit at least 6:30, have little to no fluency breaks, and have solid points.
Undertime = wasted time, develop your points even more if you feel yourself falling short, I probably won't notice.
Fluency is key for all speaking events, if you have a couple stumbles you will be fine but don't have any large noticeable breaks in your speech.
Interp/OO:
Pull me out of my seat and into the story, the ultimate goal is to make me forget I am judging you. I don't have a lot of experience in these events, but just do a good job and your rank will reflect your effort.
Public Forum / Debate
TLDR: FLAY
Please include me in the email chain or speechdrop (ask if I want to be included in round) - email -> Jackbeery11@gmail.com
I will call for cards at the end of the round regardless of if you ask me to, but I will be more inclined to read ones that you point out to me.
I am pretty tabula rasa, but I will eval arguments on both sides on card depth and link strength.
I will eval kritiks if warranted and impacted correctly.
I will eval Theory shells if warranted and impacted correctly.
Do not say that the other team violates something and then just drop that for the rest of the round and expect me to vote on it.
Friv theory shells are the bane of my existence, no I am not going to drop the other team because they are using macs.
I drop arguments that do not have a link and warrant.
Impact weighing is necessary for me to vote for a side, if you do not impact calc when both arguments are linked and warranted, do not expect me to vote on your side.
Spreading is fine if you share speech docs for all your speeches.
I am a fan of disclosure; you should probably share your case with your opponent 30mins before round. If you run disclosure theory, you need link warrant and impact. I expect counterinterp or address to the shell in case of 2nd speaker if run in 1st case. If you don't other team is warranted to run dropped theory.
For me personally, I want voters in sum after a little line by line, IE: explain why you win the line, then present the voter.
Weighing is absolutely necessary at least by the end of summary, weighing in rebuttal is a great tool if you have time though because it sets up voters and how I should evaluate each impact from case pretty early on, which lets me have a quicker ballot and RFD, as well as really eval every claim presented.
Truth>Tech most of the time, I want to believe what you are saying but if something is blatantly unbelievable from the perspective of a normal person, I won't buy it. If it is somewhat believable I will buy anything, at that point tech is fine, crazy links are acceptable if I buy the main arg off the impact.
Talk to me directly and tell me what to do. It is less impactful to explain the problems with their case from an objective perspective compared to telling me what to do about it.
SIGNPOST PLEASE
WEIGH PLEASE
I will vote on card indites if the opposing team's major voter relies on one or two cards that you can indite to a great extent (IE: it is super corrupt / old / ill-informed / etc.)
Speaker points reflect volume, fluency, and tone, as well as respect to your opponents in cross.
Unlike some judges, I do pay attention to cross, so dont be dumb in cross.
If you want me to vote on something tell me to vote on it.
I will check flow if you tell me to in speech or cross.
DO NOT DOMINATE CROSS -> LET THE OTHER TEAM SPEAK - > DO NOT ASK TOO MANY FOLLOW UPS
also make sure both you and your partner are asking and responding to questions in grand cross.
be civil, its called Public Forum for a reason
Overall just do good lol, im gonna call for your evidence any which way so make sure you arent using random surveys and stuff. Evidence should not be the entire debate but a guide to it, but even so i'm going to make sure the evidence you cite is actually saying what you are saying, as well as analyzing what the other team tells me about your evidence.
Extras
i like jokes in your speeches, humor goes a long way, just make sure it is indeed funny, and not a dumb joke.
Great AGDs are the bookends of speeches, if you have one you will be memorable and as such have greater round presence.
King Update:
Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for teams that don't send all case and rebuttal evidence before the speech
I debated for four years on the national circuit and now coach for Westlake
tldr stuff is bolded
Add me to the email chain: ilanbenavi10@gmail.com
General:
Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"
If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us
Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite
~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~
Part I - General
I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments
I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them
"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech
Part II - Evidence
Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache
Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.
Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.
Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it
Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after
Part III - Weighing
Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed
Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent
Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).
Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene
Part IV - Defense:
Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech
Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there
I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses
~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~
Theory:
I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go
I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA
If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them
Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format
*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win
Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)
Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)
Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension
Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive
K affs:
Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter
Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time
K:
I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out
No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable
I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg
I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level
I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm
Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments
FW:
I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything
Tricks:
Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them
~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~
Presumption:
Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can
Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first
Speaks:
I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.
tjhsst, he/him, add me to the email chain: abennepal@gmail.com
IM FLAY
my paradigm is will sjostrom's & eli glickman's but im REALLY BAD at evaluating anything prog
defense is not sticky
framing > metaweighing > weighing > cleanest arg > presumption (i presume best drip), but cleanest arg w/ contested weighing will probably always win
i follow rwang's framework for drip
I default to probability > everything else (and not really impact probability, more like strongest link)
SEND RHETORIC AND CARDS BEFORE CASE + REBUTTAL OR UR SPEAKS ARE CAPPED AT 27.5
anything -ist or -phobic gets u 0 speaks, sing the first 4 lines of freestyle by lil baby for 30 (song has to be playing in the background)
i love flex prep!!
any questions? ask in round or messenger (Aben Bhattachan)
Hi! I'm a high school speech & debate competitor who primarily does speech, but I've judged a fair amount of debate.
In general, as for pace, I'm not big on spreading, I won't dock you off for it or anything, but if I don't hear a point you say, that's on you.
When deciding my ballot, I'll look back at the whole debate flow and compare what arguments each teams win/lose on, weigh, and give my final opinion. Your speaking skills are much appreciated, but I won't count that into my decision much, unless it comes down to it.
One thing I'm not too fond of is when some debaters claim that some tech will exist in the future "because innovation", so if you want to say that innovation will cause technological development and thus helps solve for an issue, make sure to explain why/how that innovation will occur.
On another note, if you want to run any progressive debate arguments, like kritiks, go for it, just make sure to explain how it connects back to the debate at hand, weigh it, and don't base it off of one weak link chain.
I debated for Boston Latin for 6 years, qualifying to the NSDAs, NCFLs, and TOCs a couple times. I broke at those tournaments in PF, Congress, Worlds, and Policy. Now, I'm a current student at Harvard.
Paradigm: My paradigm is pretty simple. I'm a standard tech judge, and will evaluate 99.5% of all arguments you read which includes theory, Ks, and tricks. I place heavy emphasis on warranting, clash-breaking, and issue recognition i.e. being able to understand the underlying clash in the round or between arguments. Fundamentally, you need to win the strongest link into the strongest impact and how I should view the round.
Some things to avoid: Avoid being mean or overly aggressive. I'll probably be somewhat biased against a team that runs tricks, and vote on educational/fairness arguments against them. I won't really use a speech doc in PF. Speed can be fast but it should be understandable.
Final thing to note: I very often will vote for the team that wins the single most important perspective, world view, or argument in the round. Most judges don't say it, but typically they can explain their decision in one sentence. That one sentence and line of reasoning is critical to how I vote. Debaters get too caught up in the line by line or small arguments like indicts to see the bigger picture - If you win that larger view of the round, you will almost certainly win my ballot.
I started a couple initiatives or led them through out my career as well. Check them out, all of them contain helpful resources for Public Forum debaters.
Outreach Debate: https://www.outreachdebate.com/
Libertas Debate: https://www.libertasdebate.com/
Public Forum Discord:https://discord.gg/CNVj2KG9f8
For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com
Add (for PF email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org
I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach there. Most of my competitive results are viewable here.
I view debate as a uniquely valuable intellectual game that centers communication, research, and critical thinking. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:
General
I am persuaded first and foremost by the arguments articulated by the debaters. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.
Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, usually not blips.
I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.
Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.
Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.
By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.
Evidence practices
Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.
Stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.
Avoid paraphrasing.
PF
Defense is not sticky.
Second rebuttal should frontline.
Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and parsing clash.
Cards should have descriptive taglines.
My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.
1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.
I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.
The Pro and Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are probably counter-plan adjacent.
I like to reward creativity and hard work.
Theory
These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.
I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates. I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.
Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.
Ks
Err on the side of over explanation. Impact stuff out, like fully impact stuff out.
Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.
Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.
Non-starters
Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.
Tricks.
Soliciting speaker points.
Misc
Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.
Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.
Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.
hi i’m emilio clear springs 25’
add 2 chain pls emiliogarza525@gmail.com
ive done circuit ld + policy and have made it to bid rounds / got speaker points in both
my ideological standing have changed since switching over to policy this last year
Quick Prefs
K - 1 (Setcol, Futurism(s), Pessimism(s), Psycho, Cap, Etc)
Larp - 1
TFW - 1
Theory - 2 (Condo, PICS Bad, just not frivolous)
K POMO - 2 (Baudy, Other white pomo men)
Phil + Tricks - 4/Strike (k/identity tricks 2) - i’ll try i’ll be lost
K- Favorite arg on aff and neg - in 3 years only like 2 of my 2nrs (in both policy and ld) wernt setcol - winning TOP is key - yes you can kick the alt if u r winning framing + links - link work is lacking in most teams i prefer a collapse on 1/2 links you are winning in the 2nr - k v k is my favorite but can get messy pls just stick to your order
for larper - yes i will vote on extinction o/w - ontology false etc if won - ive had enough debates to know when someone is winning - go for link turn / fiat good interps best strat probably easiest to win
for non black pessimism - it is weird and odd i’ll vote for you but probably turned by like just any competition ivi or most pess authors work - best staying away ill lower speaks
Larp- so fun, switching to policy i can enjoy a good larp debate - pls weigh - plank counterplans with more than 3 planks prob are abusive but i can be persuaded otherwise! also more than 6 condo is probably abusive and will have a harder time changing my mind! - aspec is boring but ill vote on it
Theory- enjoy a good theory debate that’s not frivolous (spec etc) - pls weigh standards - more open to non black disclosure practices but anything is up for debate - also policy t debates r fun be as nit picky as u want - if u pull it off i’ll give goood speaks
TFW - appreciate tfw teams that aren’t racist/sexist etc… tfw is fun answer impact turns disads and have a clear ballot story!!! - tvas are best strat along with tfw tricks (limits da, ballot pic hidden inside, etc)
Speaks- If u annoy me u will get low speaks ( condescending, etc) but other than that i’ll give good speaks i start out at 28.5 go up and down - speaks theory is no - be clear pls….. i can handle clear speak not jumble your speaks will show it - love a good low point win
VPF:
Put me on the chain! @gilrain-lennond25@stlukesct.org
TLDR: St. Luke's '25, I've debated primarily PF for 3 years. I'm a tech judge. Go as fast as you want if you're clear. I'll evaluate any argument (yes k's, yes theory). Defense isn't sticky. If your opponent asks for evidence you should provide it. Weighing is a good idea. Debate can get intense but you shouldn't be unkind to your opponents.
Bottom line is I'll vote for any argument you can win
If you have any questions about my paradigm feel free to ask me
My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,
My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.
In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.
Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.
I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.
I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.
I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.
Just be clear and loud
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!
lay parent judge, speak clearly
Basis Independent McLean '24, UC Irvine '28 |PF| shaunjones247@gmail.com (he/him)
About Me: Debated for 3 years locally as Basis Independent McLean Z[J] and 1 year nationally as Basis Independent McLean [J]R. I was ok at both. Now I go to UC Irvine where I'm double majoring in Political Science and Mechanical Engineering.
Quick excerpt about the local VA circuit from my good friend (and the guy who ended my debate career) Connor Chun:
"I dislike much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes?? Is it really impossible to find any judge who at least has some idea of what debate is??? It should be pretty obvious which circuit I prefer..."
**-----NOTE FOR NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT-----**
Epsilon/Theta CANNOT initiate theory on Kappa kids. Otherwise everything else still applies.
TLDR:Typical Tech > Truth judge. Good with speed, please send doc. Not a good judge for the K, so its a risk when youre running one on me. I'm more competent evaluating theory, just slow down in the backhalf pls. Anything bigoted gets a calm L20 and a report to tab. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad. Debate is a game, yall should be enjoying yourselves and having fun. Please just refer to me as Shaun, not judge. Please tell me if there is anything I can do to accommodate you in your round!
Not a fan of the oldheads who proclaim "PF is not policy-lite!!!" and "Put the Public back in Public Forum!!!" . To say that an entire event is getting ruined because people are innovating away from your personal debate style of the mid to late 20th century is... incredibly self-centered... to say the least.
Prefs Sheet:
1 - Substance
2 - Theory / Topical K's
3 - Non - T K's
4 - Tricks (I find them abusive but theyre kinda funny)
Strike - Phil, High Theory (Its not that i dont like them, its that I have no idea how to properly evaluate them)
Stuff specific to the local Virginia Circuit (WACFL): Disclosure isn't a norm, I won't vote off of it. I would be inclined to drop you if you read disclosure against teams that you know don't have an opencaselist. Substance only unless both teams agree to do a prog round. I'm also not allowed to disclose rfd after round - you'll have to wait in anxiety.Please set up an email chain though; WACFL rounds run super late because it takes years for teams to call for individual cards, so setting up an email chain before round will make things much smoother.
Content Warnings:
Please provide content warnings if you are about to discuss sensitive topics (sexual violence, self-harm) in the form of an anonymous opt out form. If you don't do this and read distressing content I will drop your speaks to the lowest.
Prep Time:
pls track your own prep time, i'm too lazy. i trust u wont lie to me. Flex prep is fine.
Evidence:
Warranted Analytics > Unwarranted Cards
Add me on the email chain. If youre going fast send a carded doc so I can follow along and so that we don't waste time calling for evidence. If you don't send a carded doc before the speech please at least send one afterwards - be wary that I'm gonna let the other team steal prep in this case. I have an extremely low bar when it comes to responses that indict evidence from Medium. If your case has evidence from Medium it better a) be from a real human being and b) have sufficient warranting for what you're reading in case.
I don't really care about clipping unless its super egregious e.g. a team deliberately highlights a part of the card that has a major implication/impact, doesnt read it, doesnt mark the doc, then collapses on that arg using that highlighted part in the extension. Other than that, I'm not gonna drop a team because they forgot to rehighlight cards after cutting down case.
I'm probably not a great judge for evidence challenges. To win one you would have to prove that a) a team deliberately cut a card to completely misrepresent what its saying and/or b) fabricated evidence. Doing either of these things is quite difficult, so you're better off just pointing out their horrible evidence ethics and it casts alot of doubt on them on my end.
Speeches:
Please signpost. I'm good with speed and I'll clear you if needed. I stop flowing 5 seconds over time.
Cross:
Nothing said in cross goes on my flow unless it's brought forward into subsequent speeches. Be assertive, but not overly aggressive. A good cross will benefit your speaks, even if you lose the round overall. If everyone is in agreement we can skip grand for 1 min of extra prep. Open cross is fine if that's your preference, just make sure to ask the other team first.
2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've basically lost the round and the other team can call a TKO after 1st summary if they play their cards right. Generated offense in 2nd rebuttal has to be in the form of turns and not just new DA's. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it shouldve been in constructive.
Summary:
No new evidence. (Unless its to frontline your own case in first summary)
Defense isn't sticky. Please extend defense in every speech; you can't forget to extend a piece of defense in summary and do a ritual in final focus to summon it again. I won't flow it. I should be able to draw a line from the 2AC to the 2AR.
Extensions don't have to be perfect. As long as you extend uniqueness, link chain, and impact, ur good. If I don't hear an extension ur doomed lowkey. U should also collapse in summary, its a good idea. This also applies to turns: you have to extend UQ, the Link turn itself, and an impact or else I can only eval it as defense.
A note about turns:
Don't extend UQ? I would be hesitant to vote on it. Why? Reading your own UQ and extending a turn means that all I have to do is vote on a risk of your impact happening. Don't extend the turn itself? Self-explanatory. Don't extend an impact? I can't evaluate it as offense absent some implications that affect diff areas of case. I'm ok with impact turns like dedev, spark and wipeout but im not ok with death good.
Weighing is very very very important. I like seeing direct comparisons between impact scenarios and links. This means that the weighing has to be comparative. Weighing is not "we cause a nuclear war" and nothing else. I want to hear "We outweigh on timeframe because our impact triggers instantly while theirs takes x years" - that's a direct comparison. If teams present different weighing mechanisms, please meta-weigh. If neither side meta-weighs I default to timeframe + magnitude.
My personal thoughts on probability weighing: The only probability weighing that I will buy is off an implication of a non-unique, saying that the link did trigger at some point but the impact never happened. If the other team can't frontline this properly and you do probability weighing, I'd buy it as long as its actually comparative to your case. The probability weighing that I would never buy is the blippy, unwarranted, new in 1st final weighing that just says "nuclear war has never actually happened before yap yap yap we outweigh" - thats just new defense you never read in rebuttal. Debate is a simulation - even if the argument is space col, if its conceded it has 100% probability and if weighed properly I will vote on it.
Final Focus:
Final should mirror summary. If the 2AR makes new responses not present in the 1AR then the 2NR can make frontlines that wouldve been in the 1NR had they never went new in first final. I'd also be inclined to give them a 5 second grace period bc they have to frontline something new. I will try to protect 1st Final Focus - meaning that I will be heavily scrutinizing 2nd final to make sure everything said there was actually in summary.
Framing
I like a good framing debate. I won't accept "Other team has to respond in their constructive" or "Other teams can't read link ins to the framing" absent warranting as underviews or general responses. Youre just avoiding clash at that point. Grow up. Nuclear war doesn't link into SV framing from a technical or truth perspective. This won't factor into my decision because that would be intervening but I will a) have a very low bar for responses against it and b) would not like voting off of it. I also don't buy prefiat weighing off of a discourse argument - I really don't get how you deserve a ballot for simply talking about an issue regardless of the postfiat outcome.
Theory:
I'll evaluate disclo, trigger warning and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions tho. If theres no offense from either side I err to those positions. Don't run theory on people who are obviously novices ('obviously' means their record is on the entries page and its all PF-Novice division). If you're in varsity anything is fair game. I don't care if you don't know how to respond to theory, "theory is dumb" and "we dont know how to respond" are not responses at all.
I default to reasonability because i can't just make up an interp if im not competing in the round so PLEASE if you're arguing against disclo/paraphrase/trigger warning you HAVE to give me a counter interp or else i err against you. Personally, I err against friv theory so if you want me to vote on a friv shell just read a CI. Just read a counter interp, it greatly increases your chances of winning.
I (might) pursue law in the future, so spirit of the interp is not something I'm gonna buy. What the interp says is whats being debated, you can't change that. Make sure your interps are as specific as possible so noone can exploit them.
If you are from a large school (>5 unique entries on your school's disclo page) and read small schools in response to the shell I'm tanking your speaks even if you win the argument. (My school has had 1 national circuit team ever and we still disclosed every single round we did that year - even locals). Just disclose, its not that hard.
IVI's are weird but if you read one and win it ill eval it.
K's:
I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. Never ran them when I competed so please warrant things out for me to understand. I will vote for things I'm ideologically opposed to (like cap good) if the warranting is sufficient. Just win the flow. Don't run Afropess if you're not black, don't run Fem Rage if you're not female - identifying. Doing either of those is kinda weird.
Presumption:
I generally presume aff, if the neg cant prove why doing the aff is bad then I see no reason why we shouldnt at least try doing the aff.
Speaks:
I generally give high speaks (28 - 29.5 range), but it's not too hard to get a 30 from me. Just have a good strategy (like going for turns, innovative weighing I like) and you'll be guaranteed high speaks. If you go all in on a turn and it works in your favor you're guaranteed a 29.5 at minimum.
Postrounding:
You can, and should, postround me. Postrounding helps me as a judge improve in the future, and gives you, the competitor, a better understanding of how I voted and how to handle similar situations in the future rounds.
Fun Stuff:
If both teams agree, we can do a lay round and everyone gets 30s. Will vote off of vibes.
Any reference to the English football club Tottenham Hotspur that makes me laugh will be +0.25 speaks (COYS!)
If you truly believe that a team has no possible path to the ballot after a summary speech, you can call a TKO. If you're right, everyone in the round gets 30s. If you're wrong, its an L25 for you.
Good luck, have fun, and do your best!
Flow Judge
Tech over Truth
roydebate2@gmail.com
For more insight reference Joseph Nahas or Martand Bhagavatula
stavan shah solo's goku
Extemp:
I am a content-oriented judge that focuses on the flow of logic throughout the speech. Delivery should mainly serve as a means of communication, otherwise, its a secondary concern. Sources need to be strong and correctly summarized. Rhetoric is extremely important and I appreciate impacts that quantified or explained in a specific and tangible way. In terms of delivery, I believe it should be there in auxiliary to emphasis points, but the main goal in giving a speech is clarity. Less gestures and basic delivery that is clear is better than overdoing it or being messy--it's distracting and makes it harder to follow the speech. What really stands out to me in terms of delivery is emotion; Extempers don't use it enough. Extemp is about telling a narrative, almost like a story, and that requires emotions too: in the tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.
Yes email chain:kiharakimani61@gmail.com
About me:
I am a proud Kenyan who grew up arguing over anything and everything until I discovered debate and the amazing and diverse individuals within it. I have been participating in, judging, and training debates for the last 3 years. Away from that, I alongside my debate club committee have organized a number of tournaments over the years. I am widely experienced in different formats of debates across different circuits in the world. I enjoy free thinkers, adaptable minds, and a keen sense of detail, and all this for me is part of the characteristics needed to be a good debater. Finally, I love dogs, and that about sums it up.
Judging Rubric :
1. Clarity: At this point what I want you to tell me is what the debate is about, and in doing so provide strong reasons and evidence as well as what your claim should be evaluated on. For example, it would help a lot if you could compile a short history of facts, characteristics, and effects of the subject in matter or create a probable future in regards to calculated eventualities from your claims.
2. Mechanization: This for me is how well you arrange your points to fully bring out your case with enough matter to stand against the opponent's case as well as proving a good basis as to why your case stands out over all others. I consider team dynamic as part of this in that, a well-worked-out presentation from you and your partner should incorporate a united front with no contradiction, as well as strong supportive extensions that solidify your case in addition to tearing down your opponents.
3. Weighing: The most important thing at this point is to completely prove the other team wrong, most responses in debates only mitigate the other team's arguments rather than prove their whole case wrong. This can be avoided by simply taking down your opponent's case through either doing of the two. First, supporting your own case, or secondly, exposing the opponents' case or claim. Both of these factors share similar metrics in regards to how you present the case. For example, If You can show how the opponent's best-case scenario is flawed through metrics (such as a case of urgency, what affects more people etc.) and provide reasonable evidence as to why there is a high likelihood of conviction from me. You can as well defend your own claim by showing how your average to the worst point is better than the opponent's best point and with proper metrics with evidence solidify your cases (Remember you can you two or more metrics co-dependently to enforce your case that be careful to emphasize on the correlation).
4. Engagement: At this point, I will be looking out for how well you are able to respond and object to your opponent, I want to see a clear confrontation between both sides. That said, no watering down of opponent points without reasonable claims or completely assuming the other side, in short, I want you to address the other team's case wholesomely.
5. Structure: I honestly think that if the first 4 criteria are met the structure naturally follows, in light of this just make sure to keep it simple but detailed, make sure that all participants can clearly understand you and you'd be in my good books. If you had an outline of your presentation that would definitely bump it up a notch.
6. Conduct: Simply put, we are all here to learn, grow and empower each other, and with that said I will not be taking any slander at all in regards to ethnicity, culture, sexuality, or stereotypes. You shall respect your fellow participants and any violation of this will result in repercussions and a report to the organizers. With that cleared up, my number 1 rule is, 'Take a breathe and let's have fun with it.'
TLDR: flow judge, please collapse and weigh, quality > quantity, ok with some speed
NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!
Add me to the email chain: mkirylau@gmail.com
Background
I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). I judged mostly PF for around a year (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.
Style/Strategy Preference
I can judge speed assuming you send docs, but I’d rather not unless you’re very very confident in your clarity. You should SLOW DOWN in summary and final focus.
Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”
COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.
QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.
I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.
How to Win My Ballot
Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)
Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)
Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense
How to Win Offense
Extend the link and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!
If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants introduced BEFORE final focus.
The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.
How to Outweigh
Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.
If there are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.
Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).
If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.
No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.
How to Win Terminal Defense
Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.
Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!
Progressive Debate
I will evaluate all forms of progressive debate, unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (aka tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.
Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness, and no RVIs.
Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.
I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.
If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy
background: Hebron debate 2014-2017 (PF, Congress, speech events)
PF Paradigm 2023
Strong preference for quality of argument over speed/trying to get in a bunch of info in your short time limits. speaking fast is fine - I can flow most levels of speed as long as you do not spread too much. Please use credible evidence with dates. Recency of evidence is important.
David Levin
he/him/his
Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com
Coach for:Speyer Legacy School (NY)
Conflict for:Speyer Legacy School; St. Luke's School (CT)
More experience: PF and Policy
Less experience: LD, Worlds, Extemp, Parli
No experience:Interp and Oratory
Expectations:
-All evidence read will be in cut cards and sent before its respective speech (marked documents afterward is ok)
-Debaters will not clip cards or otherwise misrepresent evidence (paraphrasing is a voting issue)
-Debaters will treat their opponents, judge(s), room and partner with decency.
-Debaters will time themselves
PF NOTE FOR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER (If option 1): This resolution is one of the most profound failures of the debate community that I've personally witnessed. I am a tech over truth judge, but that ends at the point where the core ground of one side of the topic is rooted in neofascist talking points. "Migrants bad" is a losing argument, and the authors/literature you bring into this space matters. Due to the brokenness of this resolution, I'm inclined to be much more lenient to the aff's competing interpretations on T. I'd much rather hear a generous interpretation of surveillance infrastructure than the Heritage Foundation's racist drivel.
PF:
-Speed is fine, just be clear
-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot
-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument
-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts
-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo
-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting
-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you
Policy:
-My topic knowledge is limited - keep that in mind with regard to acronyms and terms of art
-Multiple conditional advocacies are fine, but run the risk me keeping a messier flow
-Generally, no RVIs
-K v. K and K v. FW/T debates have historically been my favorites/most intuitive to evaluate
-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!!
tech after lunch (bring me food for speaks boost)
你好,我是 alex(他/他),卡里学院 2025 届毕业生
如果您在回合前有任何问题,我很乐意回答
把我放在电子邮件链上:aldaman636@gmail.com,尽量不要花超过一分钟的时间来寻找你的证据,一旦事情变得令人震惊,我很可能会开始进行你的准备工作
技术 > 真相,发送文档 >200 WPM,清楚
确保你扩展了所有的参数(uq、链接、内部链接、影响)并请权衡(如果你是新手,我会给你更多的余地)
运行 prog 需要您自担风险
推定缺席犯罪或其他推定依据
我的评分很高,最低的评分大概是28,除非你做了一些坏事(种族主义、性别歧视、-主义),在这种情况下你会被insta-dropped
如果允许的话,我会在回合结束后披露并提供反馈,请随意进行回合结束,但要保持冷静
hey, i’m alex (he/him), class of 2025 at Cary Academy
if you have any questions ask prior to the round ill be happy to answer them
put me on the email chain: aldaman636@gmail.com and try not to spend more than a minute looking for your evidence, if it gets egregious ill dock speaks
tech > truth , send speech doc > 200 wpm, be clear
make sure you extend everything (uq, links, internal links, impact) and please weigh (if ur a novice, ill give you more leeway)
run prog at your own risk
presume neg absent other offense
speaks should be pretty high, floor is probably 28, unless you do something bad (racist, sexist, -ism) in which case you'll be insta-dropped
ill disclose and provide feedback after the round if allowed, feel free to postround but be chill
=============================READ BELOW IF IN PF(Congress in under PF paradigm)================
Hi Debaters!
I am a "flay" judge when it comes to PF debate. I am aware of all debate terminologies and jargon. I prefer lay speed for speaking, but if anyone wants to spread or go quick, just add me to the email chain of your speech docs.
If you're in Novice/JV
I'm a pretty standard flow or "flay" judge. Here's what you should do in each speech
-
constructive: read it; emphasize key points, clarity is key here; no super spreading
-
first rebuttal: refute the opponent's case thoroughly, brownie points for rhetoric
-
second rebuttal: refute opponent's rebuttal(aka frontlining) + refute their true case
-
summaries: explain the arguments that I should vote on in the round, explain why you win them, and weigh impacts. don't try to recap all of your arguments here — pick your strongest one and go for that(collapsing)
-
final focus: summary but 2 minutes
if thou dost not signpost, on the ballot i will probably roast. please tell me which argument you're on when you start talking about it. it makes my job so much easier.
please ask me any questions you have about debate!
general stuff you should probably read if you're competing in varsity
- set up an email chain before the round and add yugmehta141@gmail.com
- concessions during crossfire are binding in the round so long as it's brought up by the other team in a speech.
- i evaluate the round in the following order: all weighing>link-level debate>evidence/warrant debate
- weighing is important but not if done wrong. nuke war magnitude weighing doesn't matter if there are 20 pieces of terminal defense telling me why it never happens. go for weighing when it makes sense, not just because your coach told you to.
- any speed is fine so long as you're not incoherent. if i need a doc to understand your speech, i will not vote for you. Here speak like I am a lay judge.
- postround me, it makes me a better judge.
Extra points
- if you want me to vote on an argument it needs a proper extension: recap the UQ, link chain, and impact.
evidence ethics are atrocious here. to encourage you to be better:
-
+0.5 speaks if both sides set up an email chain before the round and use it to call for cards
-
+0.5 speaks if both sides send each other (and me) all case evidence after reading constructive
- if you've ever debated on nats circuit, i much prefer that style of debate.
speaker points
- make me audibly laugh = 29.5(or higher if you debate well)
- making opponent laugh = 30
- disrespectful behavior = 25.
- bigoted/exclusionary behavior = as low as I can go + L.
- long, not well answers in cross will drop your speaks significantly. concision = productive crossfires.
Overall, I am looking for a respectful, competitive, and lowkey chill round.
============================================CONGRESS==========================
Hi congressmen and congresswoman(debaters),
CONGRESS
I rank each bill separately and then rank speakers based on cumulative rankings on each bill. If the chamber does 3 bills with base 2, I will find some equitable way to rank the round. I like breaking Congress down into 3 categories that I rank based on: round integration, content, and delivery in that order.
Some notes on how to score well for round integration:
- REFUTE-- Refute the best argument on the other side. There are 2 parts to refs: name-dropping and disproving/outweighing their argument -- if 1 of those doesn't happen, it doesn't count in my eyes. Without refs outside of the sponsor, you won't get more than a 4 (likely a 3) for speech score.
- EXTEND-- Meet burdens that haven't been met (no, not your lazy quantification), give terminalization of an impact or proving that you have a better solvency.
- WEIGHING-- Weigh the AFF and NEG worlds, not individual arguments. I order weighing as follows :
Pre-Requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability
Some notes on content:
- ARGUMENTS-- Provide good arguments. If you have a unique argument that shifts the round, go for it. If you have round-winning framing, give it to me. I'm open to anything.
- EVIDENCE-- Give strong quantifications wherever possible.Month and year minimum (last 5 years). Author credentials appreciated but not required.
- PRINCIPLE-- These have a place, but are rarely used correctly. If you know how to run a principled argument in World Schools, go ahead, you'll do well. Otherwise, chances are it'll hurt you.
Some notes on delivery:
- INTROS-- A good introduction goes a long way, especially jokes and funny intros if done well. If you use an intro that's been used before (especially if by another debater),
- PADS-- The less you look at your pad, the better. If you wanna pull a power move and go no pad, I'll pick you up for sure, just make sure it doesn't come at the expense of strong refutations. I don't like iPads, but probably won't drop you if you use one. Legal pads are preferred.
- I LOVE RHETORIC, USE IT!
Update for Winter Cup 12/16/2023:The point is for novices or beginners to learn -- I don't want to hear theory or 400 wpm spreading
Hello! I'm vedant (vuh-dahnt). I've debated on the natcirc for 3 years, quartered STOC, made it to top outs a few times and broke at some nat circs. I will flow and evaluate whatever.
My goal as the judge is to adjudicate (obvious) and (arguably more importantly) make the round a safe, inclusive space. If you're not sure what anything on my paradigm is or wanna ask about anything else, feel free to email me at vedantamisra@gmail.com
TL; DR in bold
Alr, time for the juicy stuff:
- tech> truth, "tabula rasa", whatever you need. Make rounds fun, debate is a game. So, have fun with it.
- Feel free to post round. I think it's crucial to get feedback in the middle of a tournament. Please just don't be too aggressive with it (I will NOT change my ballot/decision).
- Cool with (and lowk pref) open crosses
- Take unlimited prep if ur asking for evi (while the opps send it*). Like in the TOC guidelines, I believe that it incentivizes teams to be quick with ev exchanges. PLEASE BE QUICK with evidence. If you take too long, I'm hard docking speaks and getting frustrated, making me less likely to vote for you.
- If its a panel with lays, I'll adapt to them unless you ask me not to. I feel like everyone should be accommodated. It shouldn't be a problem for you to go lay.
- If you think something's missing from my paradigm, please feel free to ask me at the same email.
- Also, please put me on the email chain. vedantamisra@gmail.com
- speed is good but send a speech doc before and make any accommodations your opponents ask for (including not going fast). if your spreading is bad i'll be sad and so will your speaks (wompity womp) formatting accommodations like rehighlighting cards, bolding, or making text bigger should also be met
- My favorite debaters/influences are Jason Luo, Ishan Dubey, Ryan Jiang, Jack Johnson, Sully Mrkva, and Ashwath Nayagudarai.
- Also i will be timing almost everything. I'll put my hands up past 5 seconds and stop flowing. Otherwise i'll dock speaks a little
- i'm pretty facially expressive -- I'll smile or laugh if what u say is funny or stupid -- or if ur corny. I'll also look confused if I'm confused or look exasperated if i'm exasperated, etc.
- Bro pls stop being corny "i'm going to begin on my case, defending allegations, and then flat out explaining why our evidence is credible" or "we still stand strong and have proven MULTIPLE TIMES" like idgaf pls enjoy ur life and find religion
*****SUBSTANCE*****
- I like hypertech rounds with evidence and spreading, but that doesn't mean you should have a lack of warranting. Please warrant no matter what (including extensions of case and responses!)
- FOR SPREADING: I can go 300 to 350ish wpm. After that, u risk losing me on the flow. (would also be down to hear spreading theory)
- Second rebuttal needs to frontline all offense and most defense. I feel like its hella unfair to 1st summary if you don't. They could point out that defense was conceded, then 2nd summ comes with some new frontlines. Don't necessarily frontline defense if you don't plan on going for it.
- First summary can extend how they want to. I've voted for debaters that straight up just went for turns, or just went for their case and a few pieces of defense. Bottom line, go for SOME offense in the back half.
- In terms of the entire round, weigh. ESPECIALLY IN THE BACK HALF, the best way to my ballot is to extend case, weigh comparatively, and extend the most terminal stuff on your opponents case. Lowk, if you can just explain to me why I should prioritize your offense over your opponents', it'll probably suffice as weighing. Just be sure to do a comparative.
- Terminalize your impacts. 'Cybercrime increasing' doesn't matter to me. $10 trillion + GDP losses -> poverty as a result of cybercrime does tho
- Make a really good comparative and meta-weigh. I LOVE META-WEIGHING. I rly wish more teams used it.
- i do think evidence is important but i need warrants with claims. in the complete absence of warrants in evi, good analytical warrants > unwarranted cards. pls extend nicely, warrant, implicate, and weigh <3 evidence misconstruction is bad and if you do it you may have to lose :(
- At the end of the day, I approach my flow and look to see who had the best comparative, then the cleanliness of the flow, and then the best defense/offense on the opps' case. To quote Katheryne Dwyer, " i think the best debaters are ones that build a narrative and still engage well on the tech (which is my way of saying poor spreading, short extensions, and a bunch of underwarranted blippy frontlines are not the way to my heart nor my ballot). my favorite debates are pretty quick techy substance rounds that still have lots of warranting and very clear ballot directive language in the backhalf." Watch Edina JS vs Strake Jesuit DY Emory Quarters on YT for a pretty good example (minus the deont stuff in the 1NR).
-
Carded weighing is GASSSS.
- I like framework debates. Feel free to read new frameworks in every speech minus summaries and final foci. If it's conceded, then u don't have to ext everything. I.e. if someone concedes a 30-45 second structural violence framework, only spend like 10-15 seconds on it in final focus.
EVIDENCE:
This one's important.
I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.
If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.
You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of what we are debating for. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. But the evidence element is often just a constraint put on debaters by big school judges with freshman prep squads that can pump out a billion cards in a day as a way of maintaining an edge. Evidence is very nice, and research is important (I was a research first debater), but don't let it be the cage of your mind.
warranted empirics > warranted evidence > warranted analytic > unwarranted empirics/evi > unwarranted blips. blips are sad.
PROGRESSIVE
In general, I'm mostly okay with evaluating prog.
Theory:I dont like theory but i ran it a little. I also hit frivolous and stock shells. I have a decent amount of experience and can probably keep up with most shells. Just ask me before your speech if I think I can judge it to make sure. I'm open to hearing both stock shells such as paraphrase and disclo, as well as frivolous shells. Just make sure the shell isn't toooo frivolous i.e. formal clothing bad theory. In terms of winning on theory, you gotta have RVIs to hv offense on the shell. Make sure you signpost a counter interp and really anything. I will default to competing interps. You don't have to use jargon when responding to theory --> j make sure the general stuff is there i.e. disclo bad for XYZ, para good for XYZ.
- Defaults: yes OCIs, no RVIs (low threshold for responses tho), CI > reasonability (minus friv theory), and the whole shebang.
- Don't disclo and paraphrase iyw -->I might not give good speaks but I'm def not hacking --> so many judges basically hack on this and thats sad (esp bc small schools genuinely don't know what stuff is)
- Reactionary theory can be read in any non final focus speech based on the circumstance i.e. someone mispronouned you like 9 times in 1st summary, u read pronoun theory in 2nd summ is okay. Or, read paraphrase theory directly after the speech someone used the paraphrased evi in like in 1st summ.
- IVIs are kinda stupid but I understand the genuine ones -- someone dropped some bs card, paraphrased but its too late, etc. As long as its not the blippiest 15s IVI idrc
Kritiks:I haven't hit too many K's, so be slightly wary with them. I will do my best to judge them, however. I would love to judge a round with good substantive K's that have understandable warrants. I prefer substansive K's, but will also judge non-T K's. Be prepared tho, I will 100% vote on T ( I won't hack but I will prefer a conceded T shell over a non-T K. Make sure to hv a CI to T if you run non-T K's).
Tricks:I used to not like these/understand them. Run them tbh. I think the funnier the better. Just don't read four straight minutes (u risk a lot) but maybe sprinkle some in w/ a security K or something. J make sure that the extensions and tricks themselves are WARRANTED.
Before you do any prog make sure you understand it -- I mean that --> theres literally been no round I know of that doesn't have messiness involved in prog.
Backfiles DONT save you either, they're usually the problem source.
LD Paradigm
Usually k affs need to change the squo to be convincing (unless its an Adv T aff!) something to change the squo in the world in debate
tell me if ur kicking out of something i.e. if i should judge kick the cp
do anything u want same stuff applies from the pf stuff j know im a standard tech judge
SPEAKS:
Going for good speaks is cool. Here are some good things you can do outside of substance that will probably boost your speaks massively.
- Good basketball joke/analogy. I was surprised to see Alec Boulton with a pretty similar speaks chart. If you talk about glorious king LeBron or Lakers, auto 30. (russ jokes don't count anymore :(. )
- If you read 4 mins of impact turns or 4 min of j turns in 2nd constructive auto 29.5 (30 if u read an impact turn I haven't heard of yet)
- If you turn in your chair or standing up when ur reading a turn
- If you make a good cricket joke/analogy. Call me Indian as hell (true tbh) but I rly like cricket. My fav players are my other glorious king Kohli, LeSuryaKumar Yadav, Sachin Tendulkar, and Chris Gayle.
- Hip-Hop references. My fav artists are Gambino, Outkast, Travis Scott, Biggie, (the man who made Graduation), Tyler, the Weeknd, and so many more. auto 30 for a good ref.
- Making jokes in cross (auto 28.5). 27 if they're corny tho.
- Be nice/ don't be not nice. Be competitive, just not rude/condescending. Even if you're hitting the worst arg in the history of args, don't act like your opponent is dumb or something. It's not too hard.
- Don't steal prep(minus the ev exchanges thing).
- If you read evi, HAVE IT CUT or suffer low speaks, ur opponents having 5 mins of free prep, and a probable L (i wont hack but i'll be in a bad mood)
otherwise, I default to 28 and add/subtract based on how you did. If you followed my paradigm and did a good, warranted, clashful, fun debate -- expect a high 29.something. Otherwise, if it was mid and normal, expect a 28.5. I usually don't dock speaks unless evi. For instance, if you take 5 mins to send, i'll cut you down to 27.
IMPORTANT STUFF:
- Responding to prog or squirrely args with the"we're small schools and don't know" I j wont flow it. if ur in varsity -- prepare for varsity arguments. Anything is game. Be ready for K's, Tricks, theory, funky ass arguments, and literally anything. obviously if ur a novice or JV then its different lol.
i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you + contact ur coaches + tab gets involved. I'm dead serious when I say it's not hard to be exclusionary and anything otherwise will get me mad as hell. My first duty is to make the round safe y'all -- its not hard.
Content warnings: yes they're important (I should be fine evaluating anything for now) but most often people use them too much. I don't think poverty, death, or anything like that needs one. If it's graphic descriptions or is abt things related to abuse, SA, trafficking, or something sensitive and personal -- yes do one. Read TW theory if u need but if there was a genuine abuse I'm stopping the round and dropping you.
Unless the tournament says otherwise, I will disclose and give my RFD (may even do disclo if the tourney doesn't allow me -- its stupid to not know if you won or lost ((unless its a round robin!)))
Pet Peeves
- "time starts on my 1st word" not that annoying but still
- "can I take one min of prep" --> j take some and take however much u want idc
- "i have proven throughout this round multiple times" or cringe phrase like that --> ugh
- MOST IMPORTANTLY: I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE MFS W LONG OFF TIME ROADMAPS- j tell me where u start and signpost, if a roadmap is more than 5-7s than imma cry and taaaaaaaank speaks dont dont dont do it. i better not hear "i will begin on my argument, pointing out why my opponents responses are wrong and why our evidence is better and why we have better impacts and why im a monkey" istg
TO CONCLUDE
Have fun with the round. Try new stuff and do your best -- hard work pays off.
Overall -- do what you want just do it well. Have some fun in the rounds and try to learn something. Everyone has a favorite argument they try to write about or run every topic ( i.e. drug trafficking, china/US heg, biotech innov) so try to find yours. At the very least don't be uncomfortable. Do your best and leave the rest to the flow.
Sorry -- that was long. if you made it then answer this riddle (if ur correct u get an auto 30):
I'm always hungry, I must always be fed,
The finger I touch, I soon leave it dead.
People fear my presence, yet I bring no strife,
I'm essential to the balance of life.
What am I?
Inesh Nambiar (he/him) GWU '27
inesh1715@gmail.com add me on linkedin
Bold = tldr, Comic Sans = contextual info
speed is fine send doc or speak clear
don't get canceled anywhere near my round I hate paperwork and exclusion
tabula rasa!! (i.e. "nuke war good" uncontested = truth)
troll args get 30s lmfao, offensive args = L obvi
flexprep & give me a good ff
tagteam cross idc u hv choice in strat
chill w offcase don't spread I’ll throw my pen and scream. actually convince me if u rly wanna lol
On Ks: never evaluated non-t Ks. Explain it like the stupid beta cuck little pf debater I am (go slow, RoB, framing, etc) pls & tysm
gl hv fun
!!! CALL ME OUT IF I HARM/DISCOMFORT YOU!! I WILL NVR BE MAD. I IMPLORE U TO CRITIQUE ME bc I'm learning too !!!
Not as strict as Jouya but agree w a good amount of his philo (i.e. you prob won't lose the round bc you say "delink" but pls cut cards/disclose)
AddjpotooleDB@gmail.comfor docs/chains
Did 4 years of PF at Newsome (‘23)
If you don’t know some of the terms I use in the paradigm, don’t be afraid to ask
If both teams agree, you can change anything in my paradigm for the round (This includes lay vs flow, tech vs truth, weighing preferences, speaker points, how I evaluate prog, and any other nuances in debate). Just let me know before round starts
PF
I’m going to default to being flow because thats the type of round I would want to judge. Refer to the section above if you want me to be lay or tech.
Flow Paradigm
As a flow judge I’m going to be voting off of the line by line, but won’t give technical losses like not extending all Defense is sticky. Collapse please. Bring up your voters in both summary and final.
Weigh & Meta Weigh. I firmly believe that meta weighing is the easiest way to the ballot, and quite often the team that gives the best meta-weighing will win. Emphasize this heavily in FF. I default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity
Mavericks get 6 mins prep
Speaker Points: I'll make the round 29-28 in most cases. If I feel the round is messy it will be 28-27, super close will be 30-29, and a mismatch 30-28. Say “Time will start on my second word” to let me know you’ve read all of this so far (You’ll get a boost in speaks). Also + speaks if you disclose on the wiki.
I won’t flow cross but I’ll pay attention to what is said. If the round is an absolute toss up to me I will vote based on who I thought looked stronger in cross. Treat cross more for the performance aspect of debate rather than the argumentation. If you feel you won a point in cross, tell me in a speech.
Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. I will not flow anything said over time, so keep this in mind
Everything under this is specifically if teams decide they want me as a tech judge
Speeches
2nd Rebuttal should always frontline & I won’t accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. This threshold is low, though- as long as you can briefly mention your response you can expand upon it in
Summary Stuff: Its ok with me if you don’t want to read out all if the cards word for word you use in case that you want to extend. Just say “Extend our C2, specifically Depetries 21 and Velasco 13.” I only prefer this for the sake of spending more time on the clash of responses rather than just restating them. I personally don’t require weighing in summary, but it wouldn’t hurt you to do so. Weighing in 1st summary should be responded to in 2nd summary. Any arg not extended in summary can’t be used in FF.
FF I expect the same from both teams, simply tell me why you won and they lost. Heavily lean into weighing. If no meta weighing happens, I'll default to Probability > Cyclicality > Scope > Magnitude > Severity. As long as you give even a little meta weighing I’ll buy into it until the other team responds.
Ask your opponents before you spread. I can personally handle 300ish wpm but if you are going 250+ send a doc.
Prog Stuff
Kritiks: You might need to explain them to me like I am 5 depending on the complexity. I’ll be able to follow the more common stuff like cap and neocol, but anything beyond that I likely won’t know much about. As long as you explain the literature clearly you should be ok with me.
Theory: I'm familiar with how to evaluate it. If there is a legitimate violation, read it the speech after the violation has occured. I default to competing interps but can be told otherwise. Also, don’t read anything on round reports.
LARP/Trix: Don't know anything about it, try it if you want but I have 0 experience
MOST IMPORTANT PART: If you run some funny case/theory, you will likely lose the round, but will receive 30 speaks, I will ask you to sign my flow, and you will be entered in the paradigm Hall of Fame.
Hall of Fame
x
x
x
x
x
For me, Speaking is a hobby and I love listening to various speeches too. I’m a flat judge with experience in judging PF, LD and a few other speech events. He/Him pronouns.
Hi friends:) plz add me to the email chain if there is one @drpham1126@gmail.com
My name is Doanh Pham, but I go by Rita (she/her). Currently debating policy at University of Kansas as a 2nd year. I'm currently a double major in Political Science and East Asian Studies with a concentration in Chinese. Highschool history wise, I debated PF and did IX at Lee's Summit West Highschool for 4 years there. Was decent, was state champ and did the NSDA jazz, you can look me up at Rita Pham on NSDA. PF is my first love!
Don't be a-holes to each other. I'm a firm believer that debate is about education and pedagogy.
No matter what event, framing then tech into truth plz. Judge direction is important, you should tell me from the beginning how I should evaluate the round/on what framework. FRAMING IS TOP LEVEL. Identity politics and structural violence works well with me over extinction/econ impacts. Also evidence quality is so important to me, I will read it if you highlight its important. Below you can see events spec thoughts:
Policy: I love high theory and critical things. any flavors of Ks are welcomed and if I don't know then I'll try to keep up actively. Some of my fav is Set Col, Cap, Asian Identity/Orentialism, Academy.... I think alt is important but if you don't have one, prove to me why your link makes their aff net worse. Im very good judge for identity politics.
Stuff like wipe out and pess/death good, eh idk how I feel about it but I don't particularly love.
K aff are cool, I'm running one for the 2023-2024 season myself - but try to have it tie the resolution somehow. I'm pretty good on the FW debate, impacts like education is more convincing then fairness for the sake of fairness. This means that I'm pretty ok with seeing how the T flow interacts with K affs if that's your thing!
I am ok at policy stuff (don't run more then 4 off as a policy strat, I will be very annoyed and the args start to lose quality), T-subsets and etcs arent my thing but I will still flow. A good DA with a strong link story is always good. Extinction impacts are overrated but I will always vote on what you tell me to vote on.
Don't love PIX/PICS and stuff that steals opponents' args but justify yourself.
I usually don't cancel teams for certain args and will give them grace since I view debate as a game but you can convince me otherwise!
PF: I am very well versed in this area, and a stern believer that PF should remain like PF. Please don't try to be high theory on your opponents, otherwise go try policy.
Since rounds are only 45 min, I think CX should be binding so you can build args. Be organized, I don't care how many contention or subpoints you have, I'll keep up. I flow most things, make sure you signpost. I think since there are less arguments in PF, you should have quality evidence. Logistics are always welcomed, but if most of the round is false logic then I will decide based on evidence quality even if you did well at framing. Just because the nature of PF is more evidence based.
LD: I never did this event but I understand its about morals/ethics and a mix of pf and policy. Especially in LD, you should center around your value criteria. Ref puff stuff to know more about me but I will judge you base on how you want me to.
TOC:
Let’s move quickly, TOC rules say your prep starts during evidence exchange
Go like 85% of normal tech speed haven’t judged in a minute
* * * * *
I debated for three years on the national circuit for College Prep. I now privately coach.
Add me to the email chain: wpirone@stanford.edu.
If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has become egregiously long over the years so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.
General:
Tech >>> Truth. You can argue anything you want in front of me. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with. I enjoy voting on creative, fun arguments I haven't heard before.
Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow directly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. That said, please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.
I tend to be very facially expressive when judging—it can help you know which args to collapse on and which to kick. If I'm vibing with something you're saying, I'll nod along with it during your speech. Argument selection is critical to my ballot—identify the best possible collapse strategy, go for the right argument, and do solid comparison on it.
Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”
If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, just make a warrant why I should evaluate the round differently. I'm open to almost everything.
Substance:
If parts of your argument are uncontested, you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal links in summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.
Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm: I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This also applies to responses such as "they don't prove xyz" or "they don't explain who what when where why"—make actual arguments instead.
Well-warranted analytics are great, blippy analytics are a headache.
In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better (larger, faster, more probable, etc). On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.
Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.
Theory:
I'll tolerate theory. I'm chill with any shell as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me. Friv is fine, just make it funny (dinosaur/shoe/no evidence theory is interesting, disclose rebuttal evidence is boring).
I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA.
If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.
*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win. The definition of what constitutes an "RVI" is irrelevant.
K:
I will evaluate topical kritiks. I'm relatively comfortable with Baudrillard, biopolitics, cap, imperialism, and security—anything else is a stretch so please slow down and warrant things out.
No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.
If you read a Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks (especially if you indict the methodology of specific studies from their case).
If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way) you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.
Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument. Similarly, rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.
CPs:
I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.
Totally open to theory against these though – just make the arguments.
FW:
Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant, anything goes.
Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.
Tricks:
These are fun, but never voting for unwarranted blips like ROTO or “eval after the 1ac.” Paradoxes, skep, etc are ok.
GOATs:
I aspire to judge similarly to Ilan Ben-Avi, Ishan Dubey, and Ryan Jiang.
Presumption:
Absent warrants otherwise, I always default to the first speaking team.
Speaks:
I award speaks based on fluency and in-round strategy. Humor also helps.
Most importantly, have fun! Let me know before/after the round if you have any questions or want extra feedback.
—WP
TLDR: Good with Substance, Ks, theory, whatever u want to debate. Over 200wpm, and I'll prob need a doc.
Sinan Roumie (He/Him/His)
Sinanrdebate@gmail.com
I'm a Freshman at Duke and have been doing PF for the past four years for Bronx Science + a little bit of CX.
Tech > Truth
NO POST ROUNDING. You can ask for feedback, but I'm not interested in you telling me every point in your case and how you should have won. Adapt better, your final focus should be writing my ballot for me.
Anything remotely racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, homophobic etc, etc will result in an automatic L20
Important In Round Stuff
-
Nothing is sticky; extend what you want me to evaluate
-
Good with speed, but FF & summary should be slow to clarify offense
-
***I don’t like to do evidence comparisons, I want to vote solely off my flow/what y’all tell me to vote for. However, if an evidence claim is brought up in round I will vote off a lack of evidence/ bad evidence, even if that claim is not a direct evidence challenge.
-
Keep your offtime road maps brief
-
I listen to cross but it won’t sign my ballot
-
Both teams can agree to skip grand for prep
-
I presume NEG, unless told otherwise. Do not read presumption warrants in final
-
Speak overtime and I'll stop flowing
Progressive arguments:
-
If you are in Varsity, be prepared to hit varsity arguments.
-
Everything should be warranted, especially in the back half.
-
Feel free to run progressive arguments on newbies. I think it’s funny, and people learn how to debate these arguments when exposed to them. DON'T DEBATE DOWN- treat every round like its your bubble. UPDATE FOR NSD// Lambda/Epsilon/Theta can't read prog against kappa. If a kappa team initiates prog then anything is game.
-
I don't have a default for what should be evaluated first in the round. Def warrant why prefiat>postfiat, K>theory, theory>K, etc.
[Theory]:
-
Fairness is an internal link, and maybe also an impact?? idk who cares
-
Baiting theory is fine. It's a valid strategy. If you read baiting theory as a warrant for No RVIs, I'll evaluate it, but I would like further implications on why it is bad.
-
I default yes RVIs if there's no ink on that debate
-
+1 speaker point if you specify whether RVIs apply to offense or defense
-
+1.5 speaker points if you read RVI spec [+0.5 more if you win on it]
[K's]:
-
Alt should resolve the link- rejecting the aff is not a good alt(unless it is)
-
You can spread cards in the 1NC, but i gotta actually understand them by final
-
I prefer Identity Ks > high theory Ks mainly because I understand Identity args better.
-
Speaks:
-
Performance - if it's good ill give 30s
-
Egregious Clipping - speaks cap’d at 28
-
Paraphrasing - speaks cap’d at 27
-
Callout K - speaks cap’d at 25
[K AFF's]:
-
Topical affs are cool, Nontopical affs are also cool.
-
Please, please, please have a topic link. Too many affs nowadays don't have topic links, and while that's fine, it would make adjudicating so much easier.
-
Please only read a K aff if you are good at debating it. I have a high threshold for them
[Trix]:
-
Not experienced with them, don't really like them. run whatever you want but prob not the best judge for these types of arguments
Speaks
-
30 speaks warrants have to be extended for it to be eval’d
-
Speaks are based on round strategy, not speaking style
-
-1 speaks if you are a big school that adds an xyzdocs@gmail.com to the chain
Hi! My name is Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar (he/him). I'm a current senior at Ravenwood High School who has debated under variations of Ravenwood SM. I've had a decent amount of success and experience on the local and national circuit.
Email for Chain: kaushik.sathiya3@gmail.com.
I consider the most important rule in debate as being safe and respectful. In round, be chill, nice, and respectful before the round. If anyone is there before the round, the same rules apply. If I'm there before round, feel free to talk about anything.
Novices/Middle Schoolers:
Ignore the entirety of this paradigm. I admire each and every one of you for trying this activity so early. The only rule that I prefer for you to follow is: Pick an argument, defend it well, and make sure that you are explaining why it is the most important argument in the round.
LARP - 1
Theory - 2
Non-Topical Ks - 3
Topical Ks - 3
Tricks - 4
General Info:
Fundamentally, debate is a game. Play to win. Tech > Truth; "Tabula Rasa".This means I vote on the argument with the least contested link into the largest impact.
- Email chains are of utmost importance.Label them properly. For example, "UK Digital Speech & Debate Series 1: Ravenwood SM vs. North Broward Prep AS Semifinals". It makes sure that I can keep myself organized. Make sure that you are sending cards and docs beforehand if possible.
- Speed is fine. If you go over 225 wpm, please send a speech doc.Debate is a communication activity, so make sure you are clear and coherent.If you are going fast, you must include elaborate tags on your docs; "Thus" does not suffice.
- Signpost. It's how I'm going to be able to keep up. If you don't, I'll be sad.
- TKOs are stupid and not educational. In my opinion, teams need to see what they can do better over the course of a round.
- Pleasemake evidence exchange quick. I judge via the TOC guidelines: Team X has unlimited prep time until team Y sends the evidence that was asked for.
- Postround- ask questions.When I was first getting started, I was able to improve significantly by postrounding judges after rounds.
Round Evaluation (Stolen from Ananth Menon):
1. I look to who's winning the weighing.
2. If team X is winning the weighing, I look at their case.
3. If team X wins their case, the round is over.
4. If they are losing the weighing, I look to team Y.
5. If team Y is winning their case, the round is over.
6. If team Y is losing their case, I presume.
Case:
- Feel free to read any type of argument as long as it's not ____ist.
-The more innovative your case is, the higher your speaks.
- Will give 30s to any teams that read all impact turns in constructive.
Rebuttal:
- Overviews, disadvantages, advantages are all fine in either rebuttal.
- Collapsing in rebuttal is an underutilized strategic strategy, in my opinion. I would definitely suggest doing this if needed.
- Defense is not sticky. You must respond to all offensive and defensive responses to the argument that you want to go for in the back half.
- Any rebuttal that is only analytics and analysis or impact turns will be auto-30s.
- Any second rebuttal that frontlines the entire case well will also be auto-30s.
Summary:
- Extensions are important. Make sure to extend the entirety of your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. That being said, this definitely should not be more than 20-30 seconds. I've heard your argument once - I just need it reiterated.
- Ido notconsider extensions with card names as real extensions. "Extend Kumar 24" doesn't mean anything. If you are not extending your arguments properly, I'm not going to vote for you even if you are winning your argument. Make sure that you are calling improper extensions out in case I miss them.
- Here's an example of a proper extension: HSR is expensive with a singular line costing 105 billion dollars. This causes the government to derive funding from other non-transportation demands on federal funds as federal loan programs can support only a fraction of HSR project costs. This is because foreign aid is seen through the optic of a tradeoff with resources available for addressing domestic problems, and 60% of Americans want cuts. This would be devastating as it would kill 3 billion people through starvation.
Final Focus:
- Follow the same guidelines as summary. Do notbe new with an argument that wasn't in summary.
Weighing:
- Weighing is the most important part of the round. Make sure you are doing it consistently throughout. Make sure you are responding to your opponent's weighing as well. Otherwise, I would likely intervene.
- I evaluate every type of weighing (Prerequisites, Short-Circuit Magnitude, Scope, etc.)
- Pet Peeve:Probability weighing is not real weighing. It's a function of winning your link.
Frameworks:
- I've evaluated and ran common frameworks (Extinction, Structural Violence, Women). Essentially, I view them as weighing, meaning that they can be introduced in any speech before Final Focus.
Progressive Argumentation:
I'll preface this section of my paradigm by saying: I'm not super experienced in progressive debate. In fact, I'm 2-7 in progressive debate. With that being said, please do not read progressive argumentation in front of me.I'm slowly learning how this works, and I hope to be evaluating "11-offs" soon.
Trigger Warnings:
I think that trigger warnings are an important precaution. It's important that we're discussing these issues, but we should be able to do it in a comfortable environment.
IVIs:
- These are stupid. I've seen these arguments being read at an increasing rate in PF, and I despise it. Any violation should just be brought up as a shell rather than through IVIs.
Presumption:
- If there is no offense left in the round, I will presume for the first-speaking team because I think first summary is the hardest speech in PF.However, feel free to make presumption warrants, and I will evaluate them.
Cross:
- I don't listen to cross. I'm probably on my phone doing something else. With that being said, concessions from cross still matter. Just make sure to bring them up in following speeches.
-Also, don't grandstand. It's really annoying.
Speaker Points:
- I'll give 30s for all the indicated situations above. Additional situations where you can get 30s are turning in chair while reading a turn, referencing the NFL (Seahawks), and referencing cricket & IPL (India & RCB/CSK).
If anything in this paradigm is still confusing, read the paradigms of Vedant Misra, Arnav Mehta, William Hong, and Ryan Jiang. All four of them have been influential to how I view PF.
I know this was pretty short and doesn't talk about my views on a lot of things, so feel free to email before the round to see my views. You can also ask me in the room.
I am a first year at USC and I coach privately. I debated for Edina in high school, acquiring over 20 bids and 2 autoqualifications to the TOC, and I won UKSO, Bronx, Apple Valley, Dowling, Millard, and the Cal RR.
I learned debate primarily fromAlec Boulton and I'll judge relatively similar to how he does. Look at his paradigm if mine is confusing.
Judge instruction is very, very helpful and underutilized. Tell me how to evaluate the round: ballot directive language, thresholds I should establish, when and/or whether I should grant new arguments, if I should err one side or another, gut-checks when appropriate, how I filter what is about to be said, etc.
I expect all docs to be sent in an email chain before the speech. Evidence exchange without docs takes a long time, and sending docs deters the use of fake evidence. If you can't meet this standard, strike me.
competitors can post-round as much as they want (i refuse to be post-rounded by coaches)
pf rounds should be open for specs -- i'm not letting anyone kick them out
absent extenuating circumstances, specs must keep their laptops closed during round
I'm pretty facially expressive while I judge, reading into expressions is probably a good idea.
substance
uniqueness>>>>>link
tech>truth
collapse
extensions just have to exist. a singular run-on sentence explaining uq/link/impact is sufficient so long as it is frontlined. I'm especially lenient on extensions toward conceded arguments.
Theory
speech times are set, other than that you can do whatever you want.
no need to extend until summary. short extensions are sufficient.
obnoxiousness and cowardice are both voters.
K
commit to the bit
make sure you understand what you are saying. it's obvious when you are just reading off backfiles or if one partner knows the lit but the other doesn't.
while I hope to remain impartial as a judge, discriminatory literature/behavior is something that I will actively discourage with speaker points and ballots, regardless of in-round argumentation
cross
be nice
justifiable anger is alright
if you are asked a yes or no question, give a yes or no answer
i am so willing to vote on cross behavior.
speaks
if you want good speaks, make sure the round happens quickly and efficiently
send speech docs
2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there
I flow
Hey y'all! I'm Will (he/him) and I primarily did LD on the National Circuit. Qualified to the TOC my senior year reading every argument under the sun.
Yale '28. Go bulldogs!
If you're a FGLI student or associated with a UDL, Title 1 School, or Questbridge (either a match finalist or college prep scholar), please feel free to reach out for advice regarding researching/applying to colleges. If I don't respond in a few days shoot a follow-up email.
Speechdrop is easier but I prefer email chain.
Email: trinhwilliam258@gmail.com
Feel free to ask questions to that email before or after any round/tournament!
Please format email chains properly. “Tournament Name (Year) -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code].
Example: “TOC Digital 3 2024 Round 3 AFF Southern California Debate Union RN vs NEG Heritage WT”
I expect email chains to be sent on time (ideally sent 2 minutes before start time so we can begin on time) or else whoever is responsible for the delay gets -0.1 speaks a minute the 1AC is late. This obviously does not apply if I am not in the room or I am still getting stuff ready. That is on me and I'll let you know when I'm good. This also does not apply if the internet is being stupid.
I've been getting a lot of questions about this recently. Tech>>>Truth. Go for whatever frivolous shell (or true shell) you want if you are confident in beating your opponent on the LBL so long as it isn't smth like clothes theory.
Conflicts: (Actual list is too long so I will just list people/institutions I coach. I'll update per tournament).
Institutions:Heritage High School (Alma Mater)
Debaters:William G Enloe RN, Clearlake RM, Memorial MG, Bronx Science LW, American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Lexington MS, Seven Lakes VS, Heights CT
Shortened this cause yapping is silly but if you wanna see my weird takes here's this document.
This paradigm will only include stuff for prefs/weird defaults I have that can all be reversed in two seconds.
I am a slightly more fascist but less grumpy version of Holden Bukowsky so you can pref me where you would pref them but lower cause I'm young.
The prefs below don't represent my particular liking for arguments but rather my ability to comfortably evaluate them.
LD Prefs:
1: Policy or Kritikal Arguments. T (of all types) Straight up Phil. Clash rounds
3-4: Tricky Phil (Determinism is not tricky).
4-5: Dense Theory Shells/Trix
Clipping tags and analytics have not been, are not, and will never be a thing. If your opponent cannot flow, they should lose. If your judge also cannot flow, you should strike them. Saying the words 'clipping tags' will result in a reverse postround.
I would prefer that teams learn to flow rather than ask for marked docs. To be clear if a speech marked a lot of cards (as in didn't read fully as opposed to skip), I think asking for a marked doc is fine.
I primarily flow on my laptop (paper is when things get desperate). I will flow author names and top down. I will only flow the words I hear you say. I will only open the speech doc during CX, prep, or after round to read evidence. You can be as fast as you want but please slow down or clear up when I shout clear. You get 3 free clears before I start tanking speaks.
I don't know if this means anything, but some of my friends in Debate I share varying levels of takes with include Albert Cai, Aiden Kim, and Iva Liu.
TLDR:
I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. These days, most debaters are more scared of incompetent judges than their opponents themselves. As such, I will try to not intervene unless necessary such as in the event of safety of a student or if an argument is truly irresolvable.
Stick to your guns and do whatever. Go for T-Framework. Go for planless affirmatives. Go for the K. Go for extinction outweighs+Plan focus. Go NC/AC. Go for whatever. Just do it well and put thought into it and your speaks will go up.
The statement below is stolen from Lizzie Su.
That being said, I will only vote on ARGUMENTs. That is claims with warrants. I have no problem voting on some absurd arguments in debate such as skep or must disclose round reports but you cannot extend a shell hidden in the 1AC for 6 seconds in the 1AR like no neg fiat and expect to win.
Nonnegotiable
Safety first. I refuse to vote on "arguments" such as "Truth Testing/Skep takes out misgendering/racism/other objectively morally repugnant things." Be a decent human being or else expect an L with the lowest speaks I can give.
Cross-Ex is good and is best used as a speech. I am fine with you prepping while asking and answering a question but you cannot say "I'll take the rest of CX as prep."
Claims I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them. (Many stolen from Alice Waters)
Evaluate/Adjudicate (you get the idea) after the 1AC/1NC.
Ad homs/arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)
Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) (No you can still read heg good vs Indentity affs...) The debate will end.
Shells that dictate what your opponent must do outside the context of a debate round/dress/you get the idea. (Disclosure is something in the round).
Give me/my opponent [x] speaks
No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. I will not vote on no 2NR I Meets or the like.
Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)
Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.
Misc: All of this can be changed with well-warranted argumentation. Debate it out.
"K debaters cheat. Policy debaters lie. If you believe both these statements to be true pref me in the 1-25th percentile."
Offense/Defense Good.
Topicality>ROTB/Judge Instruction (like K Framework)>Theory>Substance
Competing Interps, DTA, No RVI
Permissibility and Presumption Negate
Comparative Worlds
Epistemic Confidence
Logic and Abritrayness outweigh
Fairness is an impact
Precision matters
TJFs are questionable but winnable.
Insert rehighlighting is fine if explained AND it's in the same part of the article/book whatever. If it's a different part of the article, read it.
By insert rehiglighting, you must explain in the speech you insert it what you are trying to assert... i.e you must say "X piece of evidence concludes (insert fact) Insert!" You cannot do "X concludes neg. Insert!" The former is evidence comparison. The other is stupidity.
Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.
Hey, I'm Vivek! I debated for four years at Southlake Carroll and am now a first-year at Stanford and coach for various teams.
Please use viveky@stanford.edu to send clearly labelled email chains; ie., "TOC R7.1 Southlake Carroll RY v. Seven Lakes LM". Keep in mind that I care more about the cleanliness of my inbox than the quality of your speaks
***For NSD: don't be late and if you're flight 2, preflow and send the email chain in advance so we can start asap. also, I'd prefer if you skipped grand cross, will boost speaks if the round finishes early (and vice versa), and am more down than usual for friv theory or other funny/unique strats***
TL;DR
I'm very tech over truth but feel that the shift of PF to "Policy-lite" is leaving much to be desired in terms of warranting, evidence ethics, clarity, and more. Aspects of that shift however—speed, progressive arguments, evidence comparison, etc—can be great when executed how they were originally intended. Moreover, I urge you to keep rounds (even high level/stakes ones) lighthearted, kind, and hopefully funny. Debate's a game and games should be fun. With that,
- I'll handle any speed you throw at me as long as I have a doc (before speech + marked after), but please slow down in the backhalf.
- I'll evaluate any argument you read but urge you to—at minimum—read the cheat sheet below and skim the rest of my paradigm.
- Judge instruction is the single key to my ballot; slow down, explain the incomprehensible yap, and write my ballot for me.
- Extensions must include all parts of the argument, but I don't care if they are delineated, in order, or sacrificed in quality for the sake of efficiency.
- Cross-ex is binding; utilize concessions to your advantage in-speech and skip grand cross if it feels unnecessary (99% of rounds).
- I presume neg during policy topics to preserve the status quo and first during on balance topics to counter last-word bias.
- Speaks are determined off of strategy, norms, and vibes—in that order.
- Don't call me judge please.
Some people who influenced much of the beliefs below include: Coach Brown, Anbu Subramanian, and Nikhil Reddy.
Some of my favorite judges when I debated were: Gabe Rusk, Ishan & Ilan, Maddie Cook, P, and Quinn McKenzie.
Cheat Sheet:
LARP - 1
Theory - 2
Topical Kritiks - 2
Non-T Kritiks - 4
Tricks - 4
Substance
My favorite type of debate. I still actively cut prep, so there's a decent chance I will be more researched in the topic than you are. Finding niche areas of topic ground was always my favorite part of debating, so I'll reward innovation greatly as a judge and urge you to throw your best, most squirelly positions at me. However, this also means I'm more attune than most to bad attempts at unique arguments, low quality frontlines, and overall subpar understanding of one's prep. Specifically:
- I evaluate probabilistically, but will more than willingly vote on risk of a disad/solvency given sufficient weighing. Winning zero risk/terminal defense is key in lieu of very clean weighing comparison, which is rare nowadays. If a debate ends with both teams winning a risk of offense and there exists clashing/unresolved prerequisite/shortcircuit/jargon analysis absent clear metaweighing, then expect a decision far more grounded in truth than tech.
- Semantically, I strongly prefer timeframe and prereqs/shortcircuits over appeals to "probability" with regards to impact debates, but do what you must.
- Please signpost to some degree across side of the flow, contention name, and uniqueness/link/impact.
- The ultimate strat will always be quality hidden links; there's a chance I pick up on them in the 1AC/NC, but clearly delineate which link you're extending and the fact that your opponent dropped a link in the backhalf.
- Smart evidence comparison will be more effective in front of me than most—I like to reward in-depth knowledge of your cards and such analysis is often the differentiator in high-level/close rounds.
- Dumping 30 second contentions is fine by me, but if you don't have the prep knowledge to fill in the gaps later you'll lose to anyone competent.
- For framing, I think util is likely truetil, as it links-in and overwhelms most other frameworks when warranted correctly. However, I'm no extinction first hack and find dense structural violence and the various sub-variations to be convincing when debated well. In front of me, I'd recommend a deep understanding of your framing evidence, embedded weighing (aprioris, link-ins, etc), and pre-fiat implications. These arguments should be read in constructive and I have a very high threshold for excluding link-ins by any team responding to them.
Evidence
I cut a lot of evidence and will likely read a lot during round. However, outside of clipping, I will not let any indicts or issues I find in a team's evidence sway my ballot unless it was brought up by the other team during the round. Regardless, I have many many thoughts on the state of evidence in PF:
- Use consistent formatting with a single font, legibile higlighting, and proper bolding/underlining for emphasis. Ugly docs won't sway my decision, but may influence your speaks.
- Use an email chain or Speechdrop for evidence exchange, not a Google Doc that will inevitably be unshared after the 2AR/NR. Prep stealing is a question of I know it when I see it and I will call you out for it.
- I believe paraphrasing is a sin and bracketing is disingenuous, but won't unilaterally punish either practice unless told to.
-Important evidence must have descriptive taglines; "Indeed," & "Empirically," are acceptable for filler cards, but not for your dense uniqueness claims or core link evidence.
Theory
I really like good theory debates and I ran theory quite a lot. I'll vote on any shell with minimal bias creep or intervention, with one notable exception below. Beyond that, anything is fair game, even if some may call it "frivolous". Theory debates, however, are far more susceptible to subconscious intervention compared to substance, so I would take into account my preferences when making strategic decisions before and during round:
- DEFAULTS: no RVIs, yes OCIs, no Reasonability, yes DTD; all of these except for yes OCIs can be changed with warrants.
- BELIEFS: disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, open-source > full-text, round-reports good, bracketing bad, google docs bad, a-spec good.
- Call me an interventionist, but if you're promoting a truly good norm then it should be easy for the quality of your debating to overwhelm my preordained preferences.
- Here is my understanding as to how a RVI functions/implicates in round, please clarify any alternate definitions during speech: if a team wins no RVIs, conceded defense to a shell is not a reason to vote for their opponents, however, a conceded turn is still a reason to do so.
- I don't care much about shell extensions; a verbatim interp extension post-rebuttal and any semblance of standard + DTD extensions is enough for me to pull the trigger.
- I think there should be a lot more "conventional weighing" (think scope, magnitude, etc) done between voters and standards in theory debates that would make them far easier to evaluate and less tenuous than they currently are in PF.
- In close open-source v. full-text debates, I will err towards open-source good every time. Disclosing blocks of text negates any benefit of disclosure overall and the common standards in most full-text counterinterps are shallow excuses to prevent scrutiny of evidence and pre-round prepouts while trying to maintain an unfair advantage.
- A non-exhaustive list of interps I've hit/read/understand: topicality, disclosure and subsequent sub-variations, paraphrasing, round reports, bracketing, a-spec, womxn, vague alts, spec post/pre-fiat, spec framing, author quals, google docs, and comic sans.
- Trigger warnings should be a question of reasonability regarding violations.
Kritiks
I will evaluate what I understand. That being said, I've ran and cut a good amount of topical Ks in my career and am decently comfortable evaluating them. However, given the docbot/backfile-dependent nature of most teams' strategies against these positions, I have a high threshold for the quality of evidence and execution of these arguments.
- I'm most familiar with set col, sec/militarism, fem/racial ir, cap, and eugenics. I urge you not to go far beyond these literature bases.
-Proving a link and explaining solvency are the two most important things to pick up my ballot with critical strategies. Links are best when contextual to your opponents and unabashedly big-stick in nature. Alts should be thoroughly explained and should solve the entirety of what the K is critiquing. I don't believe ROTBs are entirely necessary, but do believe that some level of neg fiat is required to make Ks viable in PF. K Affs should distinguish their solvency between fiating the resolution and having an additional alternative.
- As a good rule of thumb, if you can't explain any one part of your kritik in a confident, digestible, and correct manner, you won't win.
- For non-topical Ks, I believe that in a perfect debate, topicality should win every time. However, I most certainly will not hack for T and I truly believe that these arguments have a place in PF when done right by teams who know what they are doing. I am very convinced by disads to both the practices of using the ballot as a method of change and encouraging the insertion of personal experiences into debate.
Miscellaneous
- Tricks and ad-homs are non-starters.
- Post-rounding is fine.
- Feel free to email me with any questions.
- vy
Hey guys! I'm Jake (he/him), rising junior with 20+ tournaments of experience in WSD, and a proud member of the USA Development Team (reigning world champions!!!)
I think that World Schools should be a fairly intuitive event, so don't try too hard to adapt to me as a judge and do what you're most comfortable with. With that said, a few minor preferences for Worlds debates:
- Style is irrelevant to me so long as I can understand you with one exception: I really appreciate adding humor to rounds and I will be happy to bump you up a speaker point or two for a very well-delivered joke.
- I'm not a fan of washing clashes out: I generally tend to think that one of the two sides is ahead in nearly every issue. This also means that if you clearly outline your paths to the ballot, you've probably won my vote.
- I don't buy the strategy of example-spamming (or "example tennis" as Alex Lee puts it), I almost always prefer a well-explained warrant even if there are multiple examples going against it. I mainly use examples as deadlock breakers between two equally sound lines of reasoning.
- I'm cool with you not running third subs, I really don't like running them most of the time. If you want me to vote off a third sub, it has to either change my perspective on the debate or turn the core of your opponent's case.
- I don't value principle over practical or vice versa by default, if you're winning on one and losing on the other explain to me why I should prefer the one you're winning.
Most importantly, MAKE SURE YOU'RE ENJOYING YOUR DEBATES!!! The philosophy of my coaches on USA Dev was that a competition is a success so long as you had fun and learned something: I didn't listen to that and learned the hard way what overcompetitiveness does (I burned out hard during second semester.) Don't feel pressured to win any rounds or upset because you didn't. Ultimately, the only reason why you're doing debate is because you enjoy it: make sure that doesn't change. Good luck and have fun!
weigh
i cannot lie I'm flay
30 speak if mf doom lyric in speech
send ev
dont be mean :(
also can you guys weigh