Tabroom.com

NOVA Debate Camp Tournament

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sasha C Hire

Sam Chen Hire

Mason Cheng Hire

Andrew Cheung Hire

Last changed on Sun July 21, 2024 at 12:50 PM EDT

Email chain/Questions: andrewcheung168@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Andy (he/him). I debated for Summit (NJ) in PF for 4 years. Next year, I'll be a freshman at Claremont McKenna College (CA) studying government and economics.

Background:

3x TOC qual with 6 bids and a multiple top-10 speaker awards. I champed a bid tourney, semifinaled a couple others, and broke at every bid tournament my junior and senior year.

My sophomore year I pretty much only read theory (when possible), my junior year I pretty much only read policy, and my senior year I burned out so I didn't really compete. Do what you will with that information.

General:

Tech>Truth. I'll vote on anything as long as it has a warrant and is inclusive/safe.

Flex prep, open cross, and skipping grand are all cool with me.

Keep track of your own time, I won’t flow anything 5+ sec over.

Content:

I'm alright with speed, but not the best. Send a speech doc if going fast (250 wpm+).

Second rebuttal must frontline all offense (turns) AND defense (on arguments you’re going for).

An argument is dropped if there are no responsive arguments in the subsequent speech.

Sticky defense isn’t real, extend through every backhalf speech.

I won't call ev unless I’m told to look at it. I may call ev out of curiosity (aka I want to steal it), but it won’t factor into my decision.

I’ll try to be as non-interventionist as possible and will not do the work for you, so a lack of weighing, complete extensions, or clash resolution means I am more than willing to presume.

I default neg on policy and first speaking team for on-balance topics. However, I love good presumption warrants and think that they can be a very good tech strat. For novices and non-varsity divisions I’d rather intervene and vote on marginal offense somewhere, but I’ll presume if told to do so.

Comparative weighing is so so important. Prereqs and short circuits are my favorite, and make sure to weigh link-ins and metaweigh competing mechanisms. Probability weighing is fine if it’s historical analysis, sketchy if it is clarity of link/impact. Good warrant comparison makes me very happy and will probably win you the ballot.

How I will evaluate weighing in an absence of metaweighing: Argument Interaction (short circuits, prereqs, link-ins) > Impact Comparison (magnitude, scope, severity, probability) > Clarity of link/impact > Non-Comparative Buzz Words

Theory:

Like I said above, I've read a good amount of theory and I'm very comfortable evaluating these debates. I am a believer in open-source disclosure good and paraphrasing bad.

I default to drop the debater, no reverse voting issues, drop the debater, and text of the shell

Please layer the shell

Kritiks:

I have debated both sides of the K and understand how they function in a round, but I'm less versed in K lit compared to theory. However, keep in mind that I am extremely washed and have not been keeping up with how the K has been changing in PF.

I'm still working on this part of my paradigm, but if you're reading basic K's (fem, cap, securitization, militarization) assume I'm fine evaluating. You can ask me before the round as well.

Other Stuff:

Any actions/arguments that make this space unsafe will result in an auto L with lowest possible speaks.

I usually give really good speaks if you’re nice, funny, and the round is chill. Speaks start at 29.

TKOs are dumb, debate the round and if your opponent really has no path to the ballot, you should be able to take a creative backhalf strategy and win to get better speaks

Minimum 29.5 speaks if you open-source and don't paraphrase (lmk after round).

Auto 30s if you bring me iced coffee(black) or chips. I'm not kidding.

If you have any questions don’t be afraid to ask before/after the round

Connor Chun Hire

Last changed on Mon May 27, 2024 at 4:55 PM EDT

Langley '26 | PF for two years

Add me to the email chain: chunconnor@gmail.com (he/him)

While I come from the incredibly lay Virginia circuit, I have a decent amount of experience on the natcirc. 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...

Hard Prefs

Stolen from my friend Tobin- There are not enough people yelling clear or requiring their students be clear. Yes kids today don’t flow because they just look at the speech document- but guess why they do that? Because no one can understand what the other team is saying [...] even when I say “clear” people totally ignore it.

Here is what it means when a judge says “clear”: I cannot understand what you are saying, therefore I cannot count any of the arguments you are making. Without arguments you will probably lose.

What kids hear: “LOUDER” “1% slower please” “Can you enunciate for like 5 seconds and then go back to mumbling?”

That being said, there are a few (pretty obvious) things that are absolutely set in stone, so you should definitely read this if you want a quick summary of my preferences. These are more lenient in novice/jv rounds (excluding respect)

1. Be respectful. Any bigotry or blatant rudeness will get you a quick L20.

2. Speed is fine- be coherent. I hold a high value in clarity because realistically if I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments. Send a doc if you're going fast, but even then I prefer not to use it.

3. Obviously keep track of your own time. I will also be timing and stop flowing once the timer hits zero, give or take 3~ish seconds.

4. Evidence exchanges have a tendency to take way too long. If it takes you more than 30 seconds to grab a card your speaks will suffer. I'd prefer it if you sent cut cards before speeches or at the very least before constructive.

5. Theory is fine, but I shouldn't be trusted to evaluate K's very well.

Other Stuff

Top level I default util, but have ran lots of SV and Extinction framing. Reading carded frameworks in first summary is iffy and reading it in second summary is way too late unless you're responding to your opponents' framing. Pre-fiat "discourse" arguments aren't the most persuasive.

Make my job easy by explaining your clear path to the ballot. Collapse on your case, collapse on their case. Debate is quality > quantity so rather than going for five unweighed turns it makes way more sense to go for one with good weighing and a strong link chain.

If an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there.

Weigh. Lots of round come down to whoever is winning weighing. Do lots of it, but have good warranting and explanations if you want it to be a voter. Probability weighing is just another way of explaining why you are winning your link and is often just new defense in the summary speeches. If you go up in summary and say "we ow on probability because their argument about nuclear war is stopped by MAD," that's new defense I won't vote on.

If I look confused I probably am.

Ahmad Elassaad Hire

Michaela Frey Hire

Fiona Hu Hire

Last changed on Fri July 5, 2024 at 2:17 PM EDT

Hi! I'm Fiona!

Add me on the email chain: xfionaxhux@gmail.com

Tldr: run any argument you want

General

Hate speech, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. Any violation of this rule will be auto 0L.

Tech > Truth

Signpost! PLEASE! It makes my life easier for flowing and easier for me to follow the round.

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH.

Second rebuttal must frontline. Defense is NOT sticky.

I need you to implicate your assertions --- PLEASE I BEG OF YOU!!!!

If you're going to go fast, send a doc. I literally cannot flow things really fastly, I need a doc.

If you paraphrase, please provide cut cards.

Speaks depend on the tournament, but they normally start at 28.5. (Blast Lana before a round and I'll boost your speaks).

That being said, for every time you go "I will take x number of prep" I will be docking a speaker point. Just say "I'll be taking running prep" and tell me how much you use -- so much easier.

I don't flow cross, but it's binding.

I'll disclose if the tournament allows it.

Specific Arguments

Policy

Extend link chains and impacts. I can not weigh the round if I have no impacts and warranting for impacts. Also, have an internal link into your impact -- saying a pandemic will cause extinction with no warrant why will not make me happy.

Evidence clash is excessive in pf. Please just weigh or give warranting on which piece of evidence is better. I don't want to intervene and decide what piece of evidence is better, so do it for me or you might be unhappy with your result.

If there is no offense in the round, I presume neg.

I really prefer you line by line everything, if you have an overview tell me where to flow it.

Progressive Debate

I'm a better judge for K than theory.

I can evaluate both non-topical and topical Ks.

Even though I've read Ks throughout high school, I won't hack for Ks. I'm perfectly fine with voting off of T, extinction outweighs, or anything else that's won on the flow.

The current state of K-affs is far too polarized. There seems to be a common expectation of literal perfection within a K team's advocacy in and out of round. I don't think it should be a sacred argument and this treatment of Ks as sacred deters minority debaters from running identity Ks in the first place.

If you are reading a K, explain your theory of power well, and make implications of why it matters.

Theory

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, DTD.

RVIs need warrants. If they don't have warrants, they are going to lose.

I'm not a fan of TW theory, I think it's used as a cop-out to not talk about non-graphic social issues. That being said, I won't hack against it.

Disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. Again, I won't hack for either disclosure or paraphrasing theory.

Tricks

I don't get tricks, so run them at your own risk.

Charles Huang Hire

Anaya Joshi Hire

Last changed on Mon July 22, 2024 at 6:52 AM EDT

Hi :)) my name is Anaya (she/her) I was a PFer at Lexington and will be attending NYU next year.

Decent amount of circuit experience (nsda and toc if that matters to you)

add me to the email chain, no gdocs please: anaya1joshi@gmail.com

A quick note: Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socioeconomic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate allows you to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals to their individuality when presenting arguments, I'll drop anyone who reads arguments that may be sexist, racist, or discriminatory in any way. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament, and most importantly, respect yourselves.

Novices:

- Weigh weigh weigh, I evaluate weighing above all link-level clash (but remember you need to win your link to access the weighing)

- Make sure that your cards have WARRANTS, and if you don't have a card for a particular argument, be brave and give me an analytic. The more you can rely on your logic as opposed to cards, the better at debate you'll become.

- 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 than "the government is run by lizards".

- TLDR of my progressive thoughts if we want to go there: disclosure is probably good, paraphrasing is probably bad, I presume first (but please read presumption warrants), send speech docs before speech if you're spreading (no marked docs, just signpost), and please don't have terrible evidence ethics or I will be very sad :((

Everyone else:

- I will vote off most arguments including theory/k/framework if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high so try at your own risk I guess) and not used to be exclusionary

- I love speech overviews and lots of good rhetoric, as they are what make PF unique. I highly suggest doing either of these in the back half, since they'll help you win the debate both on the flow and in my heart.

- Do a lot of weighing/meta-weighing (not just for me, it's also strategic if you're lost/have time) and make sure it is all COMPARATIVE (i.e. don't say "we outweigh on scope" without actually taking the time to compare the # of ppl affected by your impact vs your opponent's impact).

- Start collapsing as early as possible in the round because quality>quantity especially considering short PF speech times.

- I'm good with any speed, so you can spread as long as you: make sure your opponents are okay too, slow down on authors, taglines, and analytics, signpost clearly, and always offer speech docs. If you get too fast, your opponents and I reserve the right to clear you.

- Feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused. I will not dock speaks and I think it usually helps you learn how you can improve. Plus, I might have made a mistake (in which case I'm sorryyy).

- NO TRICKS this is debate, not Halloween

- Lastly, debate is a game, so don't take it too seriously. Please follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make this activity more accessible to you. Have fun and good luck!!!

Speaks scale

I default 28.5 for novices and 28 for varsity

Below 27: you were abusive, you said something ___ist, you will be reported to tab

27.1-27.5: you made some pretty large strategic errors that lost you the round or you were a bit rude/annoying

27.6-28.0: slightly worse than average, you made some small and large errors, you were a bit hard to understand

28.1-28.5: average, you did what you needed to do but nothing exceptional. 50% chance that you won the round

28.6-29.0: better than average, you spoke clearly and passionately, you made the right strategic decisions, 60% chance you won

29.1-29.5: really good job. you didn't make any technical errors and your speaking was excellent. 90% chance you won.

29.6-30.0: crazy good job, 100% chance you won

Anukool Joshi Hire

Tuilaepa Katoanga Hire

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 10:56 PM EDT

To quote Eva Herrick: I like to think I’m a flow judge but honestly, I might have a mid-round identity crisis and just become a lay judge. (proceed with caution)

More importantly, to quote Anaya Joshi: Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socioeconomic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate allows you to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals to their individuality when presenting arguments, I'll drop anyone who reads arguments that may be sexist, racist, or discriminatory in any way. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament, and most importantly, respect yourselves.

⋆˖⁺‧₊☽◯☾₊‧⁺˖⋆

Hello! I'm Tui, a senior at Regis High School. I use he/him pronouns. I've done debate since middle school.

I've never been an extremely technical debater (my views reflect that). That said, I'll try to flow pretty much anything except tricks (check my longer paradigm for my thoughts on prog).

I flow and I always try not to intervene – yet I'm always inclined to vote for the team whose arguments don't require me to take several leaps up the staircase of logic. I'm probably most aptly described as a lazy tech judge.

Do these things and we will have a very smooth round:

Extend. If you're going for an argument (contention, turn, advantage, disad), ALL of it (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact) needs to be extended otherwise I will not vote on it.
Collapse. A two-minute final focus shouldn't have 5 reasons to vote for you.
Weigh. I love good probability and prerequisite weighing. Link-ins need to be weighed otherwise I don't know what to do with them (we link in because _____ AND we're the best link into their case because ____ >>> we link in)
Cut your evidence. It's not difficult. Not having cut cards is an independent reason to drop you. Please cut your evidence.

This is a gross oversimplification, but, unless I'm told otherwise,here's how I evaluate round:

Theory/K (if there are both, give me a reason to prefer one or the other)
Framework
Weighing
Cleanest piece of offense

I default to the first speaking team, but if I'm defaulting, your default speaks are probably 27s.

Otherwise, have fun! (make Taylor references). If you want, I have a longer paradigm which you can read here. There's some (unimportant) jargon, so feel free to clarify anything with me. I recommend you check out this website and this website if anything is confusing. If you want more resources, check this out as well!

If you want good speaks, be kind, be funny, and be strategic :p

Mariska Khalikov Hire None

Anant Khandelwal Hire

Last changed on Wed March 13, 2024 at 5:06 AM EDT

I'm a parent judge who brings a multi-cultural and international sensibility to my role, a perspective also informed by more than 25 years of practice in the field of law. With clients that have included hi-tech companies, venture capital funds, and a governmental agency, I have always sought a fact-based and science-driven outlook that values substance over style and rationality over rhetoric. May the best debaters prevail!

Debater at TJ, HAVE LEGIT 0 TOPIC KNOWLEDGE ON ARCTIC.

i wont flow off of speech doc

tech > truth but i wont vote off of BS

keep it under 225 wpm pls

Copied From Will Sjostrom:

Debate is first and foremost a safe and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I really enjoy debate so do what you are best at.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal

More specific stuff:

Arguments:

I don’t really care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at and I'll judge it accordingly.

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I won't have any issue flowing any speed you decide to go.

Theory:

I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any other theory arguments just need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be tough to impossible to win in front of me.

Evidence:

I'd really prefer you read cut cards. Debate is an activity about high quality research not writing a persuasive english paper. If you do paraphrase then you really need to have the cut cards ready at a minimum. A card is not cut if it does not have a complete and correct cite as well as the important/ cited parts of the card being emphasized. Evidence should be able to be sent when asked for in a timely manner. If it is not sent quickly it may be dropped from the debate.

Jae Kim Hire

Last changed on Thu March 28, 2024 at 6:21 AM PDT

NO SHIRT

NO SHOES

NO BALLOT

now on a serious note

hey i'm jae! im a first year out and competed at torrey pines in san diego (torrey pines kt/tk). debated pf nat circ for the first three years of hs and coached my senior year. i've gotten some bids, qualled toc, ndcas, and made late outrounds at a couple of nat circ tournaments. i now debate policy at UC Davis and coach pf.

debate is all about learning to get better, don't be afraid to use me as a resource
if you have any questions (in round or debate in general) or need/want any help, feel free to ask anytime.

email: jnkim@ucdavis.edu

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jae.kim.503645

defaults:

- comparative worlds

- competing interps > reasonability

- theory/t > k > case

- drop the arg > drop the debater

- no rvis

- fairness > education

- text > spirit

- ethical certainty

- presume first speaking team

round stuff:

- debate is a game, play however you want to win

- i flow/tabula rasa

- i disclose and will also disclose speaks if you ask

- read and wear whatever you'd like

- add me to the chain (same email above); send case/ev docs before round; use email chains, not google docs

- flip/preflow before the round. fast evidence exchanges. i don't flow anything over time.

- you can do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.

- do whatever you want in cross, i literally don't care and im probably not paying attention anyways

- i am fine with speed, but depending on the time of day my ability to keep up varies. pref dont spread. SLOW DOWN WHEN SWITCHING BETWEEN PAGES/SPOTS ON THE FLOW. please give me speech docs and slow down a bit in the back half.

- i'm pretty generous with speaks bc screws suck :(

- i don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. i view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. it's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- asking questions after the round is fine. light post-rounding is fine. be aggressive/disrespectful at your own risk, i will probably match your energy as well as dock speaks.

- you can swear in round. don't make it excessive though.

- absolutely nothing remotely _ist; L20

- everything must be responded to in the next speech or its conceded, besides constructive. defense is never sticky.

- every round is decided by determining what the highest layer of offense is -> who links into that best

- signpost PLEASE

- weigh weigh weigh. link comparison. warrant comparison. i vote for the team with the strongest link into the strongest impact (clean pieces of offense). i like voting on turns but they must be weighed and have impacts. pre-req weighing is the best but do it right.

- collapse in the back half and do metaweighing

- high threshold for extensions. i don't acknowledge blippy extensions on anything. link and impact extension on any piece of offense in summary and ff.

- in order for defense to be terminal, it only has to be implicated as such and be resolved against frontlines. if these criteria are not met, i will assume there is a small but nonzero risk of a link story happening, which bears the risk of allowing your opponents the ability to win the round off of the framing debate and a risk of a link.

- if you want to concede defense to kick out of the turns, you MUST do it the speech right after the turns are read and must point out the specific piece of defense you concede/explain why it takes out the turn.

- i believe debate is a game with educational aspects; that means i will literally vote off of anything from death good to a game of chess if that's the consensus rotb

- regardless of paraphrasing, you MUST have cut cards or you're capped at max 26.5 speaks for being cringe

- if a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, i’ll give them double 30s

- if your opponent has no path to the ballot, invoke a TKO and you win with 30s

i hate intervening. as a result, you can lie, read false evidence, etc. if it is not called out by your opponents, i will not do anything. in my view, my role as a judge is not to be a referee nor an educator (which is a coach's job), but rather to be a blank slate in the back of the room. all the "educating" will happen AFTER the round, but i see no need and have no desire to meddle with the content of the round.

TL;DR: collapse, extend, weigh pls :D

Trigger Warnings

i don't require trigger warnings and will never opt out of any argument. trigger warnings have been widely misused and weaponized in debate to make me feel comfortable enough to not care about them. i won't penalize the absence of trigger warnings nor hack for them either. feel free to run trigger warning good/bad theory if you really care.

Framework

go crazy. i ran a lot of framework when i debated. structural violence is my comfort zone. default util.

Prog

- must send everyone a speech doc if reading any prog args

- i evaluate any prog arguments (Theory, K, T, tricks, PICs, etc.)

- pref shell format

- i dont care if you read friv shells, it's probably funny

- im more familiar with theory and ran it at a couple tournaments

- im wayyy less familiar with Ks so flesh out and explain your Ks well since im not the best judge for those types of rounds. im most familiar with model minority and ive hit quite a few fem Ks throughout my career

- if you are going to swing wildly outside of the pf meta, and read phil-rooted args, i am going to be confused and will require a lot of slow explanation. make sure you're extending the rotb, alt, link-- every part of the K, in order to garner offense.

if you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, i will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory/theory excludes me because i don't know how to debate it" response. do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation.

as an aside to this ^, if you read anything from this article as a reason why theory is bad, i'm probably just going to intervene. this is one of the worst takes i've ever heard, and i'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity propagate. this is the one spot i feel 0 shame in intervening.

remember to have fun and make friends!

Speaks boosts:

guess my favorite esports team: +0.5 speaks

guess my favorite hockey team: +0.5 speaks

if you're dulaney faith zhao: -30 speaks with a loss

for more info, my judging philosophy/paradigm was inspired by Dylan Beach, Katheryne Dwyer, Skylar Wang, and Eli Glickman.

Daniel Li Hire

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 3:37 PM EDT

tjhsst '24 he/him (some parts of my paradigm are stolen from alec boulton)

Add me to the email chain dli447890@gmail.com (feel free to email after with questions!)

tech = truth (a dropped argument is true, unless it's just plain wrong. The more goofy an argument, the lower my threshold for responses is)

grand cross is a grand waste of time. if you skip it +0.5 speaks, and no, you don't get any extra prep time if you skip it. In terms of the other crossfires, I don't pay attention to them, so tell me if something important happens.

Speed trades off with clarity, the faster you go, the less likely I am to be able to flow everything you say. If it's not on my flow, it doesn't exist, and I don't flow off docs. So basically, don't spread.

-Traditional-

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Dump if you want, but at least be responsive. I don't care for your other contentions or "DAs," get good at debate and use your brain. All your responses should be warranted and implicated. Turns or link-ins need to be weighed.

Second rebuttal needs to frontline. It may be strategic to collapse.

Defense isn't sticky. If it wasn't in summary, it no longer exists.

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is 100%, unless their evidence specifically says "there is an x% chance this happens". Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact. What does 20% GDP lead to?

-Progressive-

don't lol

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly biased and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read because they think they're doing something good. It's disappointing.

-Evidence-

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 take speaks off or give you the L depending on how bad it 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 (I require evidence in constructive though). 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 doing debate 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. Use your brain, it's a good one. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

good evidence = good analysis > bad evidence > bad logic

-Speaks-

I will go from 27-30, 28 average (unless you're racist or something). Speaks decided based on crossfire, rhetoric, & strategy. Being funny or entertaining will probably boost your speaks.

W30 if you rap every speech

+0.5 speaks for a good forehead joke

+0.5 speaks if you roast your partner in speech/cross (it must be a good roast, and must be tied to the debate in some way)

David Li Hire

Fiona Li Hire

Ellen Liu Hire

Grace Liu Hire

Mathan Liu Hire

sim luo Hire

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 8:59 AM EDT

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

Anmol Malviya Hire

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 4:49 AM EDT

he/him - georgetown - add me to the email chain: anmol.malviya0827@gmail.com and label accordingly (tournament, round #, teams).

tldr: I debated on the national circuit for 3 years at Oakton; I currently coach Langley (RC, SG, BG, LJ). traditional pf judge that's tech>truth, big on thorough execution of fundamentals (weighing, collapsing, efficiency)

Update for TOC

All of the below still applies, but some specific things:

1) My experience with prog this tournament has not been rewarding, and has reminded me that I don't think I'm the best judge to evaluate progressive argumentation. As always, I will try to vote on anything that is explained and warranted and this is not meant to discourage theory/make it seem unviable, but I do not think you should read progressive argumentation with me in the back unless it's an in round safety issue (think CW) where I will intervene!

2) Send case/reb speech docs. Traditional evidence exchanges are incredibly time consuming, this is not optional.

3) Full disclosure -- my ability to evaluate speed has definitely decreased as I've spent time away from the activity but spreading/speed in general is more than fine; as long as you're clear it shouldn't be an issue (I won't flow off of docs)

4) Time yourselves, I don't flow cross, and don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, etc.

non-negotiables

1. be respectful or L20 (be equitable, read anonymous content warnings with ample opt out time, nothing remotely _ist)

2. weigh and compare at every single level to resolve clash and minimize intervention

3. if an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there

4. i have minimal experience with progressive argumentation but am willing to vote on almost anything (no tricks), run at your own risk

other than the above debate how you want - i'll try and adapt to you

ask questions before/after round if you have them, and if there's anything i can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before round or reach out to me via email

Harold Park Hire None

Maria Pelaez Hire

Ramon Perez Hire

William Pirone Hire

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 9:53 PM PDT

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.

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

Arnav Ratna Hire

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 1:43 AM PDT

hey yall, im a current senior at college prep and have been doing pf for a few years now

email: aratna2@college-prep.org

add me to the chain, i'd prefer if you don't use google docs to share evidence, but your choice

dont be racist/sexist/homophobic/any -ist or -phobic, i will intervene, debate should be safe before all else

read the underlined stuff if you're in a rush

Novices

Ignore the entirety of this paradigm — try your best to give concise, good speeches, and don't worry about messing up, debate's a fun activity and yall are so cool for having the courage to try it out, if you have any questions feel free to ask before, in-round, or after

I won't care about small technicalities either — if you don't extend your argument, that's fine! (and if you don't know what "extending" means, that's also fine! my role in novice rounds is to be an educator, so ask/clarify anything)

General

tech >>> truth (literally read whatever you want)

Signpost, collapse, and weigh, it makes everyone's lives so much easier

Feel free to postround, it's a good norm

Pls read trigger warnings on graphic arguments

My decision

I evaluate weighing --> argument winning weighing --> argument losing weighing --> presumption,* in that order (more on this in weighing section)

*I presume neg on policy topics, and 1st on benefits v harms topics (feel free to make your own presumption warrants though)

In round

I can follow speed, but a lot of this comes down to clarity — sometimes I'm able to understand someone going 275 wpm if they enunciate clearly, other times I can't understand someone going 250 wpm — as a guideline, I'd say if you're going over 250 wpm, send a doc (I'd prefer you send a doc regardless though)

If I can't understand you, I'll yell "CLEAR" — after 3 times, I won't intervene, and you'll have to hope I understand what you're saying

Second rebuttal has to frontline all offense and has to frontline any defense on whatever argument they're going for (this is non-negotiable — if you don't frontline in second rebuttal I'm basically signing my ballot for the other team)

If you wanna frontline everything in second rebuttal, go ahead, I personally think it's smart if you can pull it off (but don't read blippy frontlines that can be backlined in two seconds)

I won't flow anything overtime (if it's an online tournament, then I'll flow two seconds over to account for lag, and then I'll stop)

I'm not flowing cross, probably won't listen to it that much, if something important is said bring it up in speech or else it's not in my ballot — this also means please don't be rude in cross, it isn't the end of the world if they get the last word

You can skip grand if you want to take 1 min of prep instead

Open cross is fine

Flex prep is fine

Going for a turn is very cool and will make me happy (as long as you weigh it)

Extending stuff

Defense is not sticky, even if you make an argument why it is, I'm not buying it — if I'm evaluating it in final, it has to be in summary

(a mini rant on extensions — PLEASE READ COMPLETELY)

I personally think case extensions are useless — they're just a waste of time and honestly I don't need to hear your argument again, I just need to know what you're going for — that being said, extensions are the norm, SO, for case extensions, extending a semblance of UQ, link, and impact, is ENOUGH — you do NOT need to extend all internal links* — e.g. nuclear war causing extinction through famine — if they were uncontested**

*note: don't take this as a sign that you can get away without extending arguments, I still need you to extend your argument, but I don't care how blippy it is as long as its there

**i still need to be able to tell which argument you're going for i.e. if you read an argument with two links, it needs to be clear which link you're going for

Example: Syria sells captagon for their civil war, affirming solves via a name-and-shame campaign, else it spills over and causes extinction (that's literally enough for me, ASSUMING ALL THE INTERNAL LINKS TO EXTINCTION WERE CONCEDED — if they weren't, either extend them on the extension or extend them while frontlining, just extend them somewhere if they were contested)

Evidence

You need to have cards — if you send a link for the other team to ctrl-f in, your speaks are plummeting, and a simple "this skews us out of the round blah blah" is gonna be an uphill battle for you to beat back

Please don't misconstrue, if it's bad enough I'll vote off it if the other team brings it up

If you take more than a minute to find evidence, either call it an analytic or take prep to find it

Substance

General

I'll vote on anything(spark, climate change good, etc) as long as you're winning the argument

Squirrelly/blippy arguments are fine with me, but I won't be too happy if you blow up a 1 sentence turn from rebuttal into 30 seconds of summary

Weighing

PLEASE weigh, it makes my decision 10x easier (metaweighing is also highly appreciated)

Carded weighing is pretty cool (especially for metaweighing)

I go prereqs/short-circuits* > link-ins > magnitude/scope** > timeframe > probability > other mechs (clarity, s/ol, etc) if I have no way to adjudicate between mechanisms (which is not nice and I don't like doing that)

*these are the same to me (mini-rant on why: if you read an argument like "war short-circuits economic growth because countries can't focus on their econ etc during a war", that is the EXACT SAME as saying “solving war is a prereq to economic growth because countries can't focus on their econ etc during a war")

**i still have no idea how these are different

If reading a link-in, tell me why I prefer your link-in over their case, otherwise I'll probably default them because they're probably more warranted — this can be super short, such as o/w on scope because it goes global, o/w on timeframe because , etc etc — the possibilities are endless, but just give me something

Pet peeve: pls don't call prereqs link-ins! if its a prereq, it needs to interact with their link

Probability weighing is eh — generally I think if a team is winning their argument they have 100% probability, and at this point people use probability weighing and s/ol synonymously

Please don't read new defense in summary and call it "probability weighing" e.g. reading MAD / hotlines as a reason why nuclear war is unlikely — that's impact defense and should be in rebuttal

New weighing in first and second summary: of course (idk why teams always say "tHiS wEiGhIng iS nEw iN sEcOnD sUmMaRy")

New weighing in first final: only if it's responding to second summary's weighing, or if second rebuttal didn't collapse

New weighing in second final: only if it's responding to first final's new weighing (which should only happen for the exception outlined above), but NO NEW WEIGHING that's your case on their case, that should be in second summary (even if first summary didn't collapse, it doesn't matter, second summary can weigh against two arguments)

Framing

Should be read in constructive (preferable) or rebuttal (at the latest) — if not, I'm not evaluating it, summary is way too late for framing

Read whatever framing you want (extinction, sv, etc)

You don't have to respond to framing in 2nd constructive (unless your opponents read reasons why you do, then either respond to those warrants or to the framing)

Progressive

General

If you read any form of prog in novice or jv (framing is fine), and the other team says "I don't know how to respond," that's sufficient enough of a response for me to kick the argument — if you're good enough to win on the theory/K layer, you're good enough to win on the substance layer (obviously doesn't apply to varsity)

*this is assuming there's a varsity division — if not, then you can read prog stuff in jv BUT NOT IN NOVICE, I genuinely think that it pushes kids out of debate when they get hit with a prog argument at their first or second tournament

A bit unorthodox, but I honestly don't care if you extend your theory/K/whatever in rebuttal (I know some judges care, so do whatever you want, but I won't drop the other team for not extending their stuff in rebuttal)

For theory, topical Ks, and IVIs, these must be read the speech after the violation/link — if your opponents paraphrase in 1st constructive, you can't read a paraphrasing shell in 2nd rebuttal (unless your shell is "Debaters must not paraphrase in rebuttal", then its fine)

Theory

Pretty comfortable evaluating this, I default no RVIs* and competing interps (and drop the debater)

*if you're going for RVIs good, then PLEASE make sure the argument you're going for on the theory layer matches** with the RVI warrant

**Example: the RVI warrant you read is the warrant that "winning a turn on the theory layer is a reason to vote for us just like normal substance", then you go for "counterinterp: teams can paraphrase if they have cut cards" — this CI isn't a turn, an example of stuff that would fall under that warrant would be something like "counterinterp: teams must paraphrase"

Friv theory is fine but my threshold for responses is lower and I'm probably more lenient with reasonability

I defaulttext > spirit, so I'm fine with you reading squirrelly "we meets", etc

I think disclosure is good (OS is slightly better), paraphrasing is bad, trigger warnings are good for graphic arguments (debatable for non-graphic arguments), and round reports are cool (but not amazing) — won't hack for any of these though

I STRONGLY prefer shell format — paragraph format is just a little imprecise and is basically an IVI at that point

The ONLY time 1st summary should have to introduce theory is if 2nd rebuttal paraphrases, otherwise I really don't see a reasonable justification, it just makes the round messy and makes my life a lot harder

Kritiks

General

Please send speech docs regardless of how slow/fast you're going

I default theory/T > K but please do your own weighing

If you read a paraphrased K (why would you ever do this) your speaks are plummeting

Topical Ks

Hit a few, decently comfortable evaluating these but I'm not too familiar with a lot of the literature, so if you're reading high-level stuff, make it really clear to me as a judge (which also means you probably shouldn't spread, at least from rebuttal onwards)

Most comfortable with security and cap, but that shouldn't discourage you from reading other stuff, just be aware that I'm less familiar

Non-topical Ks

Also hit a few, less comfortable here, I know how these function generally but I prefer if you treat me as a lay/flay and make my role as a judge super clear

I've noticed a lot of teams in PF really don't do a good job on the ROTB warrants — I think ballot piks are SUPER strategic when responding to these Ks

Tricks

I used to not like these, but honestly I think these are pretty fun (you probably still won't get good speaks if you read them, but it'll make me smile and I'm totally fine voting for them)

Goes without saying, but tricks must be in constructive

IVIs

These are fine BUT if it's something like a paraphrasing IVI, just please read the shell instead, it makes the round much more precise

Speaks

I'll start at a 28.5-ish and go from there, speaks are super subjective so I hate giving low speaks

In general, your speaks will only go down if you're annoying in cross, or if you do anything else mentioned above in my paradigm (like having URLs instead of cards, etc)

IGNORE BELOW FOR WESTERN

Boring speaks

+0.2 speaks if you send speech docs for constructive

+0.2 speaks if you send speech docs for rebuttal

+0.2 speaks if you disclose (you can just tell me before the round, I'll probably double-check but just to make sure you have a wiki page and there's something there)

+0.2 speaks if you don't paraphrase constructive

+0.2 speaks if you don't paraphrase rebuttal

Fun speaks

+0.5 if you turn when reading a turn

+0.5 if you make a bad pun

+0.5 if you

Other paradigms

This guy knows what he’s saying

Ethan Roytman Hire

Last changed on Sun May 12, 2024 at 2:05 PM EDT

Heritage ‘23 - ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

Tech > Truth
Fine w/ speed
Did PF for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30. Also, apparently there is a spec RVIs shell on the circuit - dont read that in front of me its so stupid.
Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork.
Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

Ivan N Shah Hire

Last changed on Sun July 21, 2024 at 6:49 PM PDT

## About Me
- Pronouns: He/Him
- BSBA Finance + Pre-law student at USC
- Experienced in Varsity Public Forum (Dougherty Valley SD) and Impromptu
- PF debater for over 5 years, 17 bids (11 gold)
- 2023-2024 Gold Bid leader, 9th at Nationals 2024
- Championships: LCC, Jack Howe; Cal RR Semis, Peninsula; Quarters: Berkeley, Presentation, and more
- Email: ivan.binds@gmail.com

## General Approach
- Tabula Rasa
- Tech over truth, 110%
- Will evaluate any argument run (I mean it)
- Prefer progressive debate. (Default: Theory > K > Case) But open to K > Theory
- Experienced with current topics
- Fast rounds preferred

## Pre-Round Expectations
- Label email chains properly (e.g., "Nats 24 R3 F1 Email Chain Dougherty Valley DS V. Durham BH")
- Have pre-flows ready
- Be on time
- Wear what you want
- Be as assertive as you like

## Speed and Clarity
- Any speed is fine
- For online rounds: Will say "Clear" twice if needed
- Provide speech docs for spreading for opps. I've never had to flow of the doc in 4 years so we should be good

## Arguments and Structure
- Clash is important w/ warrents
- Weighing is crucial - helps determine ballot
- Collapsing/crystallizing is essential
- Don't go for every argument on the flow
- Signpost and use brief roadmaps (max 5 seconds)
- Meta-weighing (comparative weighing) appreciated
- Unique weighing early in the round preferred

## Speech-Specific Expectations
### Rebuttal
- Read as much offense/DAs as desired
- Implicate arguments in line-by-line
- 2nd Rebuttal must frontline terminal defense and turns

### Summary
- 1st Summary: Extend turns + Case, terminal defense if time allows
- 2nd Summary: Extend as much defense as possible with author names (case too)

### Final Focus
- 1st FF: New weighing allowed, no new implications unless responding to 2nd Summary
- 2nd FF: No new weighing or implications
- Summary/FF parallelism appreciated

## Cross
- Will listen but not flow arguments unless restated in speeches
- Be strategic and smart with questions
- Some sass and fun in cross is appreciated
- Don't be too uptight

## Evidence
- Fine with email chains for evidence exchange
- Don't ask for too much evidence or steal prep
- 2-minute limit for pulling up cards
- Will only examine evidence if asked, seems dubious, or major clash occurs
- Send docs with cards before every speech

## Progressive Debate
- Experienced with Ks and theory
- Default: Theory > K > Case (but can be changed)
- For tricks: Win truth testing, don't default to comparing worlds
- Don't just read all tricks after defaulting to comparing worlds (considered a defaulted perf con)
- Enjoy prog rounds over substance ones, but don't be discouraged if you're new to it I'd love to help out after round

- No need to extend the shell in Rebuttal, or extend Default CI/Reasonability or no/yes RVIs if both teams agree.

## Speaks
- Generally high (above 29, 99.99% of the time)
- Docked for:
- Going 10 seconds over time (Time your ops please)
- Reading a shell you violate
- Humor is appreciated and can boost speaks

## Decision and Post-Round
- Will always provide oral decisions
- Post-round discussions welcomed
- Decision only changed if wrong button pressed on tab

## Bonus (for certain tournaments)
For 30 speaks, provide me with water or some drink. I presume first>neg>shorter speech times.

Remember, I will evaluate every argument and keep rounds fast. I prefer progressive debate but can obv. handle substance rounds as well. Feel free to contact me for any questions or clarifications. I had a longer paradigm before but ChatGPT has crystallized it pretty well :).

## Last thoughts: Have fun, you'll regret being too uptight after your last career round.

Spencer Swickle Hire

Last changed on Tue July 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

Debated LD, CX, and PF for American Heritage for 5 years. Won the TOC and a few other tournaments in LD, bid in policy, and broke a few times in PF.

email: swicklespencer@gmail.com

General:

- Tech > Truth

- Read whatever you usually read, I will probably be fine at evaluating it

- Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact/ implication and I definitely will not be afraid to say your arguments do not have that (this is mostly aimed at tricks debaters but also policy debaters who spam one-liners with no warrants)

Policy:

- Probably wouldn't pref me if you only know how to do this type of debate. I never read policy arguments aside from a process cp like 3 times but I do love spark!

- I'm fine for policy vs other positions (and favor it in some instances), I just don't know how comfortable I'd feel evaluating a policy v policy round.

- I love T debates and think it's a super underused tool vs policy affs

- I prefer arguments with warrants over arguments that spam the word "PICS, Aff ground, Topic Lit".

- I really love good K debates, but despise bad ones.

- PLEASE answer arguments, there's just no shot I am going to be willing to listen to a 5 minute overview and then get post rounded for not applying one line from the 5 minute overview to the affs specific argument on the lbl.

- Contrary to what you may think about me, I'm probably 50/50 in policy v k and 60/40 for T vs K (favoring T).

- I REALLY LOVE k v k debates and if you execute one well, I will give super high speaks.

- My favorite Ks were Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, and Warren.

Phil:

- I love phil debates and will be very happy evaluating them.

- I expect to vote for util more often than not since people do not have a good understanding of how to do framework debate anymore.

- Creative framework arguments like contingent standards and skep triggers are super fun to watch and you basically will guarantee yourself high speaks if you execute one well

Theory:

- My favorite argument. Good theory debating is so fun to watch!

- I don't care how frivolous your arguments are, but I do think reasonability is a very valuable tool.

Tricks:

- Given the current state of tricks debate, I will probably be very upset judging a tricks round. If you PROPERLY read and execute tricks (not a 30 point OV, 20 aprioris that make little to no sense, etc) then I will be VERY happy. If you read a ton of nonsense, I will probably not be very happy!

- Indexicals is my favorite argument!

How 2 get high speaks:

- Read an interesting new trick I've never heard before (that actually makes sense)

- Contest paradigm issues on a theory shell strategically

- Go NC AC

- 6 mins of an impact turn (cap good, spark, dedev, etc)

- Going 1 off Cap or Psycho vs a K aff with smart interactions on case

- sit down early when you know your winning

Sienna Vaughn Hire

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 6:42 AM PDT

hi! i'm currently a rising senior at flintridge prep in california. i've done pf since 7th grade and been on the national circuit since 9th. if you want to see how I did -> https://www.tabroom.com/index/results/team_results.mhtml?id1=707607&id2=707610. overall, I feel comfortable with most of everything in pf, but if you have one takeaway from my paradigm, it should be the following quote from my partner daniel zhao... "If you don't agree with anything in my paradigm its fine because if you win your justification for why your arguments are true in round I will pick you up" (tech>>>truth)

progressive args - I'm comfortable with judging theory. i read disclosure theory as a debater and know all the parts of a shell. with that being said, I'm better at debating it than judging it, so as long as you're clear and speaking around or below 200 wpm for theory, I should be good. with all this being said, i think disclosure and paraphrasing rounds are boring, and i'd rather not judge them. be more creative than that! for Kritiks, I've lost to identity K's 5/6 times i've hit them which should show you how much i understand the intricacies of them. i will evaluate your args as best as possible, and i likely know the args you are making, but just be slow and clear. tricks eek idek if that's how you spell them. i'll do my best fs

evidence - i do believe having good evidence is really important, so please don't just send your opponents a link or a non-cut card. with that being said, i never liked judges who cared so much about every little piece of evidence that they ignored everything else in the round. I'm not looking at your evidence unless it heavily influences my decision, but i might drop your speaks a little if we have to wait for you to cut a card because it wasn't cut before. in my opinion, good ev is important, but how both sides debate/use the ev is more important!

speed - send a doc if you're going fast. if you don't know if you're going fast, send a doc. with that being said, I'm still not the best in the world at flowing. I'm probably a 7/10. slower = safer. i consider 250 wpm pretty fast. docs and clarity are your best friends.

warrants - the MOST important thing in debate. explain explain explain. always explain. break the clash with warrants. have warrants for your responses, your internal links, your impacts, all of it! i care a lot about warrants. birds are fake. sure. why!

response stuff - defense is not sticky. i need everything extended in summary and final focus. a dropped turn is conceded offense. no new responses unless they are weighing or implicated from something else on the flow. a turn is not a turn unless it has an impact. even if that impact is just there impact, you have to say that.

weighing - SUPER important. weighing is what makes good debaters great. i love creative weighing. BUT...be clear with it. number your weighing if you're going to do a lot of it. if you want me to vote properly, do all the weighing for each argument under that argument not everywhere in every single place like "oh yeah this o/w too"

signpost please! off time roadmaps don't need to be 10 years long. just tell me where to start or the general direction

I'm most likely timing your speeches just because it helps me flow. i'll probably stop flowing when you finish your last idea that was still started in time. call out your opponents tho if they are going over!

attitudes - be funny. be lighthearted. be nice. don't be condescending. don't speak over your opponents. i want to LIKE you as a debater. make me like you.

if i'm on an elim panel with lay judges, please adapt to them, not me! i can watch any round and love a good lay round. fast debate will exclude the lay. slow debate will still include me.

i think the best debaters can go into the fastest round with TONS of arguments on the flow and give the slowest speeches. THAT is good debate. efficiency. strategic decisions. winning 10 pieces of offense is cool, but if you were unclear, you are jeopardizing the round because you might not have done enough work on a single one for me to feel comfy voting for you.

have fun!

Christina Wei Xu Hire

Last changed on Fri June 14, 2024 at 12:31 PM CDT

lincoln east pf '24 | 7 bids + 18th at 2023 nats

i will bump speaker points if u send speech docs:christinanaxu@gmail.com

updated for nhsdlc:

Age: 18
Location: United States
College: Yale University
Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student in college

1. What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?
Public Forum Debate for all four years in high school. I amassed 7 career bids, qualified three times to TOC, qualified three times to NSDA Nationals, and placed 18th at 2023 NSDA Nationals.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Anything over 300 words per minute or over 1,200 words in constructive/rebuttal.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Talking over your opponents, rolling your eyes or getting upset when opponents call for cards, and not answering your opponent’s questions. I DON’T like aggressiveness, don’t do it.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

I always evaluate in the order of framing/observation, weighing, then warrants. I am also tech over true and tabula rasa. I’m a flow judge. Therefore, if something is dropped and you point it out, impact, and weigh it for me, I’ll probably vote there. Otherwise, I look for the path with least resistance. I REALLY appreciate it when teams will compare their arguments and weighing for me, so I don’t have to intervene. Defense is not sticky, and you must frontline in 2nd rebuttal. If an argument isn’t in summary, then I won’t evaluate it in final focus. New warrants/analytics in 1st summary is fine but not in any later speeches. If neither side compares, I’ll default neg. Please don’t do blippy weighing, you need to tell me WHY. I don’t listen to cross, so if it’s important you need to bring it up in speech. I’m fine with prog but I have a decent threshold. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.
I won’t drop for bad evidence unless you tell me specifically and show me where.

6. How many public forum debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?

A. 0-5

7. How many notes do you take during a debate?

I try to take notes on everything.

8. What is the main job of the summary speech?

Summarize the main arguments in the debate.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.
9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making?

1, unless it becomes a big deal on whether an argument is topical or not.

10. How important is framework to your decision making?

1, unless the other team has framework. Then I’ll default their framework unless you bring up a counter framework or clash with it.

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making?

1, I won’t listen or evaluate it unless brought up in speech.

12. How important is weighing in your decision making?

10, weighing determines which argument I look at first. BUT, if your weighing sucks then it’s the same as not weighing. Also, please compare your weighing mechanisms (i.e. probability over magnitude).

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
1, I’m flow. I don’t care if you’re making eye contact.

14. How fast should students speak?

Anything under 300 words per minute is fine.

General Stuff:

i will eval this order: framing/observation --> weighing --> warrants

tech > truth

if neither side compares i will just default neg

i can handle any speed but if ur not clear then dont expect it to be on the flow or send a speech doc before

i will eval prog but i have a decent threshold (ie 15 min disclosure vs 30 min disclosure is not abusive)

defense is not sticky and you have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal

if its not in summary its not in final focus

new warrants/analytics in 1st summary is fine but not in any later speeches

im probably playing 2048 during cross so if something is conceded bring it up in the next speech

Chris Yoo Hire

Daniel Zhao Hire

faith zhao Hire

Irene Zhao Hire

Login to Tabroom

NOVA Debate Camp Tournament

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges