Tabroom.com

2nd Annual Winter Championship

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jonathan Ben Susman Adler Hire

Ayan Bakshi Hire

Last changed on Thu July 18, 2024 at 7:46 AM CDT

Southlake Carroll '25

I should have some type of doc for case and rebuttal, and every round should have some way of evidence sharing. My email is ayandebates@gmail.com.

TLDR: Tech>Truth, I'll evaluate any argument that is not problematic. I will give relatively high speaks. I should have some type of extension for every argument you're going for, it doesn't have to be perfect. Speak as fast as you want, send a doc.

Preflow, flip, and be ready to go as soon as possible. Speaks will be higher the quicker the round is. Cross doesn't matter, skip it if both teams are down.

—— GENERAL ——

LARP/Substance - 1

Theory - 1

Kritik - 2

Tricks - 3

Non-T Kritik - 4

High Theory - 4

Performance - 5

If you or you opponent clearly doesn't know what some of these words mean, that's probably a sign to just have a normal substance debate that is fair to everyone.

Everything else is stolen from Vivek Yarlagedda.

—— SUBSTANCE ——

Signposting is crucial, especially for messier rounds.Judge instruction is also super helpful and highly valued (how to evaluate the round, when/whether I should grant new arguments, if I should gut-check or err one way or another, etc).

I definitely won't flow and might not listen to cross, if you want me to remember something bring it up in speech.

Resolve clashing link-ins/pre-reqs/short circuits- otherwise I'll most likely have to intervene to resolve it & I'll be sad.

Send full docs before all speeches where new evidence is read, and send marked ones afterwards, especially if you're going fast.

Absent warrants, I'll always presume first due to recency skew, but you can change that with warrants. No new presumption warrants in final focus though, make sure they're in summary.

—— PROGRESSIVE ——

A — THEORY

I really like good theory debates; I run theory quite a lot. Disclosing open-source with round reports is good, but I will vote for anything as long as its won. There will be no bias in evaluating anything in the theory debate.

I default to competing interps and no RVIs, but that can change. Reasonability is persuasive but read it in addition to your CI...comparative models of debate are always easier to evaluate.

The shell doesn't have to be perfectly extended, that's cringe. If you win the shell but forget DTD you're still winning.

On friv theory, I'll evaluate it but will have a really low threshold for responses and won't be so rigid with regards to CIs. Shoe and Team Sweater theory is friv, hyper-specific disclosure shells and must not send Google docs are not.

For reference, here's a list of shells I've ran/hit/understand: disclosure, paraphrase, round reports, topicality, open-source, full text, bracketing, spec method/actor/rvis/rotb, womenx, must send speech docs, must not send google docs, post/pre-fiat spec, vague alts bad.

B — KRITIKS

I'm game if you want to run a topical K and you do it well.

I'm most familiar with the following: cap, fem ir, securitization, set col, and orientalism. I prob won't understand anything hyper-unique in this realm; if it's not in the above list or isn't a variation of it, be cautious of reading it or over-explain.

Reject alts and discourse alts are fake, have a real method for change. On that note, I'm pretty flexible with extra-topical alternative/method strategies, which I think is needed for a well-executed K in PF.

You have to win your links to access pre-fiat offense. I will never vote for arguments precluding your opponents from linking in or "we said it first".

Theory uplayers the K, but I can be convinced otherwise.

C — FRAMING

I default to util, but I'll always evaluate basic framing (think Fem, SV, etc). Anything more complex is out of my realm, but I'll listen to anything.

D — COUNTERPLANS

I've never ran a counterplan but I will evaluate them with a kinda-low threshold for responses. I'm curious as to if things like process CPs are viable in PF, and am yet to find out; I think they could be cool.

Probably won't work on "on balance" resolutions, but if it's a fiated policy topic, go for it I guess.

Adhitya Balasubramanian Hire

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 3:42 PM CDT

Hello! I’m Aadhi (he/him), and I’m a junior on Eagan High School’s Varsity PF team. While I largely compete on the MN circuit, I have attended quite a few national circuit tournaments as well.

I want to be on the email chain: 804882@apps.district196.org. Feel free to ask questions before/after round, but I might not reply immediately. Please use this email for speech docs/case sharing if you are planning to spread.

Tl;Dr: Tech>Truth, Speech Docs, Signposting, Theory is fine, not much experience with Ks but willing to vote on it if it’s well explained, have fun!

People who have influenced my judging: Christopher McDonald, Mollie Clark, Ceil McDonald, Lawrence Salonga, and many more..

Novice/JV: Please just have fun in my round! Be clear, polite, and do your best! One W/L won’t define you as a debater; always learn from your mistakes and be proud of your success.

—

I consider myself a flow judge. My decision will be based solely on who won on the flow, and nothing else. That being said, the narrative of your advocacy is important. Having a crystallized narrative of your case that is easy to understand helps you shape frontlines and makes weighing easier in the final speeches. ANY -ISM OR FORM OF HATE WILL GET YOU DROPPED WITH LOW SPEAKER POINTS

While I don’t vote on speech critiques, I do appreciate clear speaking, passion, and aggression (not too much) in speeches. Having these will reflect positively on your speaker points.

I’m Tech > Truth with the caveat that I reserve the right to deal with outright racist or sexist arguments in a more traditional PF way. As a judge, my job is not to evaluate how much I believe your argument, but to evaluate how well it was rebutted by your opponents. I don’t want to have to intervene in rounds, so don’t make me. With debate being an educational activity, I 100% agree that the sky is NOT green, but if the other side doesn't refute it, I have to flow it through. This especially becomes important with more nuanced arguments such as "Student Loan Forgiveness causes inflation", where judge intervention can be really bad for the debate sphere.

The easiest way to win my ballot:

1.) Weighing. Weighing should happen in summary, final focus, and if you’re under time I expect you to weigh in rebuttal. Weighing should be Comparative. I’ll be disappointed if you say “We outweigh on magnitude because our impact is death” because that’s not comparing your impact to your opponents. EXAMPLE OF GOOD WEIGHING: We outweigh on magnitude because our impact is millions of deaths while our opponent's impact is economic, deaths are more severe than an economic boost. ANOTHER EXAMPLE: We outweigh on reversibility because death is irreversible, a small increase in inflation is not. I want to hear the “We Outweigh because/on” when weighing. +0.5 speaker points if you Metaweigh. If you weigh and your opponents don’t, I automatically buy your weighing and with a clear extension = you win!

2.) Collapse. Blippy and confusing arguments are hard to vote on, so kick out arguments that you’re not going for. I’m ok with collapsing in second rebuttal, summaries, and even in final focus (although at that point it’s a little late). Mini Crash Course: So long as your opponents only read defensive responses on your case (see the "other" section for what Defense and Offense are), you can drop that contention in summary and go for the contention that is generating you the most offense in the round. I won’t hack against you if you don’t, but I will be more likely to vote for you if you collapse and make your narrative clear and your opponents don’t. You should be going for one or two arguments MAX in final focus, but expand on them with more analysis throughout the round.

3.) Case Extensions. This is VERY important to me. If you extend your case and your opponents don’t, I’m (almost) certainly voting for you. Prewrite case extensions that you can read in Summary/FF to get all of your offense out. Novices especially tend to drop their case, which is a really bad idea. Something like this would be good (I wrote this for the Student Loan Topic on the CON):

Wealth inequality is declining right now. High-income households hold the majority of debt, meaning that half of all relief would help the top 30%, compounding this targeted policies are more effective, and this is essential since SLF takes away money from targeted policies, and this is all critical because the helping of rich perpetuates wealth inequality which worsens deadly poverty. Poverty causes 183,000 deaths a year.

When extending it’s especially important to extend HOW the contention works and the IMPACT of that. If you don’t extend the impact (in this case, 183,000 deaths) then it’s hard to weigh and evaluate in round.

4.) Signpost. Off-Time Road Maps are nice to have, but please signpost as you go so I know where to write down your responses.

Other:

Speed: I can flow pretty fast, but if you’re going to spread send me and your opponents a speech doc. I DO NOT want to see a Google Doc. Send your speech doc through the email, either through a .pdf, .docx, or copy paste.

Crossfire: I don’t flow or vote on crossfire, so you don’t need to be aggressive. That being said, I like to see debaters trapping their opponents into strategic concessions in Crossfire. If you do this AND bring it up in the next speech, I will bump your speaker points up.

Theory: I do know how theory works, so you can run it. My favorite type of theory is honestly paraphrasing theory because evidence ethics are very important to me. I’ll give you and your partner 30s if you can run it well. I personally have not had too much experience judging or evaluating it, so I would recommend to stay on the side of over explaining. If you’re a novice, you can skip the theory/K section. If you don't know what theory is, look here.

K: I’m not very experienced with Ks, but I’m willing to hear them out. You probably should err on the side of over-explaining them, though. I’ll vote on it if you do that!

Disclosing: I am happy to disclose and give feedback so long as a.) BOTH teams are fine with it (it's ok if you're not) and b.) We're on schedule and not delayed. I’m also willing to give detailed speech-by-speech feedback upon request; if we don’t have time in-round you can post round me and ask for feedback if you want, but don’t try to be aggressive because I’m not going to change my decision.

Offense vs Defense: Remember that offense is giving me a reason to vote for you (i.e. Your case, Turns, etc). Defense is telling me why I shouldn’t vote for your opponents (i.e. Delinks, Nonlinks, Nonuniques, etc). Neither are sticky in a round and you need to extend both, but without offense, I cannot vote for you. Extend your case into a narrative story in summary and final focus, weaving the claims, uniqueness, warrants, links, internal links, and impact. Or, in simple words, extend your case. I don’t want to know who I vote for by the end of the summary because you didn’t extend the case.

Speaker Points: I average 27 and move up or down depending on how much you impress me relative to the competition pool (a Novice 29 is not equal to a Varsity 29). For me, speaker points are a combination of your speaking ability/persuasiveness as well as strategic decisions made in the round.

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Fun stuff:

Auto 30 if you bring me a Baja blast from taco bell

+0.5 if you read a turn and physically spin around when you do.

Hamza Banatwala Hire

Last changed on Sat July 6, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

My name is Hamza. I am a current 3nd year debater for Blake HS (Rising Junior) in MN Minneapolis -- Add hbanatwala26@blakeschool.org to the chain and send cut cards with speech docs before your speech.

Tech > Truth

-- Run the argument you want within reason so nothing discriminatory or racist

-- Extend uq link and impact at the minimum when extending an argument.

-- Don't go for everything in the back half, make strategic decisions for which arg you are winning the most and tell me why its the most important in the round. In other words, weigh your arguments and do it thoughtfully. Pre reqs that are warranted and extended properly are the best form of weighing and can sway my ballot.

-- Plz preflow! In other words just be prepared when the round is supposed to start.

-- Ev ethics matter... Read from cut cards and don't paraphrase. If you truly HAVE to paraphrase then don't go fast and send rhetoric otherwise speaks will prob be meh.

-- Defense is not sticky, extend whatever you want on my ballot.

-- Time yourself

-- Be nice, have good crosses, don't yell. debate is a game it's supposed to be fun

-- Speed is fine don't give up clarity tho, if it's not clear then that's on you

Cross

-- If you want ev, call for it after cross not during

-- alternate questions, allow for followups within reason

-- Cross isn't binding

-- Don't be mean but i don't care if you are a little aggressive, just be aware.

Kritiks

You can run K's but it might be at your own expense b/c I don't have much experience with them.
Don't run high theory K's, but security and cap are prob a better bet if you want to run them.

Theory

-- default to interps and competing interps > reasonability unless convinced otherwise

-- Disclosure is good paraphrasing is bad, trigger warnings are bad

-- IVI's are weird, if the opp did something rlly bad then just read a shell

-- No RVI's

Speaks:

-- assigned based off strategic decisions

-- won't go below 26 unless you are racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

Have fun! I will disclose if the tournament lets me

-- Ask questions after round just be respectful of everyone.

Ken Bhardwaj Hire

Last changed on Wed June 26, 2024 at 4:35 AM PDT

he/him

Debated two years of Public Forum at Coral Academy

Add me to the email chain: kenbhardwaj2@gmail.com

PARADIGM

Novices: Be good on the flow and don't be offensive. I give out good speaks for the following things: impactful endings, jokes, personality, efficiency. There are other ways to get good speaks, but without one of those, a 30 is hard to attain.

TLDR: As long as you're not being racist, sexist, homophobic, Tech > Truth. I like weighing. 50/50 chance I adapt on a lay panel. I evaluate the round based on the highest layer of offense extended into FF, and who links into that best.

Pref Sheet:

1 — Tech Substance

2 — Theory

3 — Stock K's

4 — T, Identity K's

5 — Tricks

Content Warnings:

I agree with Gabe Rusk.

Prep Time:

Track your own time, I'm too lazy. I trust you won't lie to me. Flex prep is fine.

Evidence:

Make the evidence exchange quick. If there's an email chain for cards make sure to include me on it. I may take a peek at your cards, but I won't do anything about it unless the other team calls it out. If you get caught paraphrasing in an extreme manner, I'll dock speaks accordingly. Engaging with evidence is important! I encourage all debaters to ask for evidence that they think is fishy, and not to take a warrant at face value because there was a last name and publication attached to it.

Speeches:

Please signpost so I know what to write down on my flow, and make sure to speak at a comprehensible speed. If I think you're going too fast I'll let you know. You can bypass this by sending me a speech doc beforehand. I stop flowing 7 seconds over time. This does mean that you can technically have an extra 7 seconds to speak, but use it sparingly; I'll probably dock your speaks a bit.

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 a minute of extra prep. Open cross is fine if that's your preference, just make sure to ask the other team first.

Rebuttal:

I'm fine with off-time roadmaps, if you don't give one just make it clear what you're responding to and how.

1st Rebuttal:

Make sure to be clear when you're going from one argument to the next ("Next, on their internal link... Then go to their C2..." etc.)

Anything flies in first rebuttal, make sure you signpost to I know where to flow.

2nd Rebuttal:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've 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 disads. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it should've been in constructive.

Summary:

No new evidence. (Unless it's to frontline your 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.

Extensions don't have to be perfect. As long as you extend uniqueness, link chain, and impact, you're good. If I don't hear an extension it's wraps. You should also collapse in summary.

Weighing is 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.

Final Focus:

Everything in FF should've been in summary.

This includes weighing! If I hear weighing in final that wasn't in summary I won't evaluate it.

I just want a solid explanation as to why you won the round. You can do it line by line, or go by biggest voting issues. Just make sure you're extending what was said in summary and crystallizing everything.

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" as underviews or general responses. You're just avoiding clash, grow up.

Theory:

I'll evaluate disclosure, trigger warning, and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions though. If there's no offense from either side I err to those positions. Don't run theory on people who are obviously novices. If you're on varsity anything is fair game. I don't care if you don't know how to respond to theory, "theory is dumb" and "we don't know how to respond" are not responses at all. I'll drop you like Georgia dropped FSU.

K's:

I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. 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 Afro-pess if you're not Black, don't run Fem-Rage if you're not female-identifying. The only thing doing that will earn is a massive side-eye.

Don't run spark.

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) and you'll be guaranteed high speaks. Each Taylor Swift reference gets a +1.

Post-round:

I'll disclose my decision upon request (if tournament rules allow for it) and give some level of feedback. I'll try to make my RFDs detailed, but I've heard that tournaments have quick turnaround times in terms of judge decisions, so this might not be the case. If you have further questions about why I voted a certain way, you can email me and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. If you have any questions not covered by this paradigm, feel free to hit up the email at the top or ask me before the round starts.

Good luck, have fun, and do your best!

Claire Cao Hire

Andy Cheng Hire

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.

Zach Coltrain Hire

Last changed on Fri July 5, 2024 at 6:24 PM EDT

About me:

Prior to graduating in 2024 I was the captain of the Appalachian State University Speech and Debate program, and have competed in like,, every standard forensics event under the sun at one point or another. My home base in middle/high school was PF, and now is NPDA/NFA-LD. My true love is interp events, but that is nine times out of ten not why you are here lol

Speechdrop > an email chain if possible, email is at the bottom of my paradigm for chains though

Your case:

TLDR - Run what you want, and show me you know what you’re doing

I’m happy with both trad and progressive rounds. I’m originally from a trad circuit, and I’ll never get bored of a trad round done well. However, as I got to college I found a love for performance and res Ks. You should run whatever kind of case suits you best, as long as you make sure all arguments are well developed (trix are not well developed, fyi).

Disclosure theory is boring and lame, so are T shells made to be kicked, but do what you must.

On T- I am VERY hesitant to vote on the possibility of “abuse” in round, much safer for me if you can warrant and prove from your first speech how topicality will play a role.

PLEASE GIVE ME FRAMEWORKS! I want to know how you are evaluating, and more importantly I want you to tell me how to be evaluating. I enjoy good FW clash but don’t like when I am at the end of a round and neither side really warranted out their framing, or just let 2 counter interps exist all the way until the end. Make it concise, tell me what FW is best, and tell me how you are doing it (or prove how you win both framings to make me very happy).

Tech > truth*. Your link chain needs to exist and be comprehensible and I am certainly willing to believe a lot more in round than I would outside the space as long as it’s not clear misrepresentation of evidence or something to that extent.

Arguments that are in any way discriminatory (ie racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, classist, transphobic, etc) are always going to lose and give you low speaks.

In-round:

Debate jargon is appropriate and has its place, try your best to explain as you go for accessibility but in a crunch know that I am with you.

Off-time roadmaps are fine with me, but make sure you are using it to tell me the order of your speech, nothing more.

I was a speedy debater and am comfortable with most spreading, but the round should only be going as fast as everyone participating is comfortable with. Never feel bad asking for what you need to understand the round and create better arguments. Also you will see a hit in speaker points if you share your case and rip through 30 pages in 5 minutes without anyone understanding unless they read along, that’s not what this activity is for.

On content warnings: a lot of content that always requires a warning is unnecessary in round anyway, or is simply unnecessary as they are brought up consistently under a given res. Don't give a graphic depiction of violence to get your point across. Using them for things like "feminism" can certainly become trivializing. Exercise good judgment, talk to your coach, use them when necessary.

I won’t flow cross, so make sure to bring up important points in your rebuttals!

Make sure you’re engaging! There are a lot of technicalities in debate, but it is ultimately, fundamentally, a game of persuasion. Good argumentation can always make up for less than stellar speech, but having the best of both worlds can almost guarantee you my undivided attention, and probably the win.

Run fun cases, create good clash, slay your speeches, and over all else, be a nice person. The fastest way to get high speaks from me is to be the person that promotes fairness, accessibility, and kindness in the debate space.

Feel free to ask questions after round or send me an email! I am always happy to talk about forensics. (coltrainzm@appstate.edu)

Tanveer Deol Hire

Kathan Desai Hire

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 6:40 AM EDT

Hello!!! I have competed in Congressional debate for nearly 3 years and have seen competitors at every single level. Debate is extremely competitive and it is important to have fun while you do it. Good luck!

Congress:

I understand that Congress is a lengthy format, but it is important to be engaged throughout the entire debate (Ask questions during each piece of legislation). Also stay hydrated :D

Here are some simple things:
-Maintain decorum (talking out of turn, yelling during questioning, speaking over your competitors)HEAVILY FROWNED UPON... -Ask judges if they are ready and make sure they know who you are (show placard). -If the debate is one-sided, flipping would be preferable (shows that you are well-prepared) -AVOID OBVIOUS REHASH (Do not just restate a previous contention without having anything else to offer)

Questioning:
-Make sure you can answer efficiently, do not concede to the question -Answers must target the actual question (FOCUS), make sure that your response makes sense -Asking good questions throughout the debate is something I will look for...

Speeches: -Sponsorships/authorships must address what the bill is doing, and stay focused on the main impacts of the legislation. -Midround speeches should present new argumentation to advance the debate (NO REHASH). Refutation is also important. -Late round/Crystal speeches should summarize the debate, have a lot of refutation, and stay focused on the main topics of the debate. -Give trigger warnings if necessary before the speech.

(I value good refutation) AGD: Humor is always acceptable (make sure that the bill is suitable for it), otherwise a more serious introduction is also acceptable. Evidence: Include source and date... should analyze the evidence and use it for the debate properly. (More evidence to support your points is always good) Rhetoric and Warranting: Make sure that it effectively explains your argumentation. -Make sure your voice can be heard and make sure your speech has good fluency.

Presiding Officer: -Make sure that debate is run fast, fair, and efficiently.... -Avoid mistakes with recency and precedence. -Everything else is self-explanatory.

PFD:

I am newer to this format, have moderate experience.

As a judge here are things I will look for:

Lay appeal, equal/effective questioning, logical argumentation

Good humor is always appreciated (p.s. can possibly boost your speaks)

Discourage running theory (If you do, make sure that everyone can understand what you are saying)

Weighing is one of the most important things I look out for (PERSUADE ME!)

I lean to favor a more traditional PF debate

If you plan to run a progressive debate (please run trad) , share me a doc, and do not use too much "PF jargon" :)

Make sure that you speak at a pace that is understandable, if you are going to speak fast, SHARE A DOC!!!

Utilize your evidence effectively to refute, Cross EX IS IMPORTANT, value the minutes given.

Good luck!

Devang Doshi Hire

Lukas Joshua Gillette Hire

Jeff Harkleroad Hire

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 8:24 AM EDT

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

L-D Paradigm:

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

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

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

IMPACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crystal Dennece Huddleston Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:31 AM PDT

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

Yakub Islamov Hire

Kieran Kelly Hire

Last changed on Mon March 25, 2024 at 5:23 AM EDT

(TL;DR, I am a tech judge. PF is about persuasion, so don't frivolous/nonsensical arguments)

Hello! I am Kieran Kelly; I have done PF, LD, and Extemp at Carrollton High School for four years. I am currently in my first year at Georgia Tech. I won some national tournaments, qualified for TOC, and won six state championships(PF & Extemp). I am pretty familiar with most norms and arguments. As a judge, I will do my best to give you a fair, equitable decision based on the flow. I love forensics and firmly believe that winning or losing a round is a truly educational, fun experience.

For questions and evidence chains, email kierankelly678@icloud.com. I want you to send me your speech doc.

**** Theory and K's truth>tech. I WILL EVALUATE THEM, THOUGH!!!

DISCLOSURE: I like it at TOC bid tournaments. You will be dropped if you run this on the Georgia Circuit.

TRICKS: No way, pal. This is super lazy.

LARP: Probably preferred.

EVIDENCE: I look at it post-round and will not vote for sketchy evidence. I'll give you ~3 minutes to find your evidence, but it should pretty much be on hand. The longer you take to find evidence, the more your speaks drop.

DELIVERY: I'm cool with speed, but I don't necessarily like it. I prefer that you deliver the speech in a way that makes me feel like you believe and are passionate about what you are talking about(even if you aren't).

WEIGHING ARGUMENTS: Run basically any FW with me, and I'll evaluate it. I will calculate the impact by considering magnitude in light of probability. However, if you prove any probability of an infinite result, I will vote on that. (extinction is not infinite unless you give me a reason to believe it is)

ORGANIZATION: I greatly appreciate good organization because it makes it significantly easier to flow. Off-time road maps are greatly encouraged, and I want a speech doc for constructive.

EXTRA STUFF: Be respectful, but don't be afraid to be passionate about what you are talking about.

Yanxi Li Harbinger Academy

Cyris Lim Hire

Last changed on Sat July 6, 2024 at 3:47 AM EDT

Current debater and president at Dr Phillips High School in Lincoln-Douglas but have debated in most of the other debate events as well. Honestly, I'm cool to evaluate anything that is explained to me and that I can hear so feel free to run anything but make sure that the more complicated the argument gets, the better you explain it. With that being said, I do have my preferences, opinions, and pet peeves.

Y'all, my paradigm is long and probably poorly written cause English is hard, ask questions prior to round start. I'd rather start round a little late than have you confused about what I like.

I prefer using Speechdrop but email chains are fine. Email: cyrislimdebates@gmail.com

(LD)

PANIC!!! WHAT DOES THIS JUDGE LIKE:

1 - Phil, Trix (phil), Trad

2 - Theory, T, Ks you can explain

3 - LARP, Identity Ks

4 - Friv Theory, Ks you can't explain, Trixs (26 off, opp can't have offense, etc.)

Strike - Performance Debates

Paradigm proper:

Phil - Personally love this form of debate and find that it is underutilized on the circuit and especially locally, people tend to opt for Policy, Util, or some other basic framework which is fine but Lincoln Douglas is the PHILOSOPHICAL debate event, it gets infinitely more interesting when framework is more than just a reused Morality Util one. Frameworks I particularly like are Kant, Hobbes, and Pettit (I know, I'm basic) but will appreciate anything new like Rand or Levinas. I don't particularly like Util, I'll weigh it but don't expect super high speaks (Usually will give +.1 for just having a non-Util/MSV fw). With this in mind, DO NOT run a framework your coach gave you just because I like phil, make sure you truly understand what it's talking about and how it interacts within the round; if I have reasonable grounds to doubt that you have any idea what your fw is saying, -1.0 speaks.

Trad - As a kid in central Florida who primarily (and sadly) mostly competes locally, I'm super comfortable with trad (to be honest, how are you NOT comfortable in trad) and most of my debate year is lay trad debates. That means feel free to pref me highly if you want to ask for a trad round (I'll likely be happy to grant a trad round) but I would prefer rounds that transcend the boundaries of trad. More phil or tricky rounds are gonna make me infinitely more interested in the round but don't feel like you're being forced to not do trad. For trad, just treat me like you would a lay judge but just cut out the fluff that is associated with it.

Theory - Honestly, I'll evaluate it as long as real abuse can be proved. Usually default DTD, Competing interps, no RVIs, yes to 1AR theory but can be convinced otherwise. I can be swayed to buy 2NR theory. Legit theory comes first on my ballot so it's usually key to respond to it. It'll be difficult to get me to vote on friv theory; my threshold on responses is SUPER low and the only way to win with friv theory is basically to have your opponent drop it or completely mishandle it.

Note on evidence ethic theories: I will always ask you after your speech whether you want to stake the round on it. If the answer is no, don't run the shell.

LARP - It's whatever, as long as it makes sense then I'll evaluate it. I default on a morality Util framing without any speaker deductions and will assume you will be weighing as such. Weighing is a MUST to properly secure my ballot in more policy-centric rounds. I always assume DAs turn case and Plans and CPS need a text telling me exactly what the plan is to properly evaluate it. (i.e. Resolved: The United States will slowly phase out fossil fuels by increasing renewable energy production from solar) Solvency is a MUST.

Ks- I think they're useful when done well and explained well. Ks that you cannot explain easily in the time provided to you should not be run as all it does is clutter the round. Ks HAVE TO HAVE an alt that can be acted upon; not just reject the aff. The alt can be a CP. Linking the K to the resolution, something your opponent is running, or to debate in general, clearly is key to making a coherent K and one I feel comfortable voting off of. I'm fine with K affs but no alt here, it should be the resolution text in place of the alt (unless it's radical, then pop off) and the K should function as your offense and not just a part of your offense, it's either go all in or not at all. If you've read my paradigm before, this is where I had identity Ks being a low pref but I'm going to be honest, they've kind of grown on me since I first made this. I still don't think I'm the best judge out there for judging identity Ks but I will definitely evaluate them a lot easier and more willingingly now. Key stipulation is that I will likely not know the lit very well (unless you are running Set Col, Model Minority, or Orientalism) so try to slow down and spend more time explaining the position.

As a general principle, I believe that: radicals alts >> normals alts >>>> reject the aff. Will eval any of them though, I just think some are def stronger than others with rejection being the weakest by far.

Quick side note, I've been loving the Academy K lately. Take that information as you will :)

Trixs- Honestly, as I become more active with using prog tactics, phil trixs have really grown on me. I kinda want you to try and run these if you can cause I feel like they create a fun debate but of course, won't get you the auto-win. Personally been running Kant 1AR indexicals and skep NC a lot and I find them fun to see and do. I don't like judging a billion Trixs so I won't be happy about it but you can run a full Trix case if you want to and I'll try my best to keep up. Key thing to keep in mind, if one of the Trix gets turned or a theory is read against you, you will most likely lose.

Performance - Just don't. Thank you :)

Other prefs:

Deontological arguments >>>>
Not a huge fan of PICs, will evaluate but pretty bugrudgingly.
Tech>Truth unless the arg is very obviously just untrue (1+1=2, it's non-negotiable)
I will try to not interfere within the round, my ballot is written by the debaters
Instant L and the lowest speakers possible for any xenophobic argument/comment (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc)
I will NOT pay too much attention during CX, this is your time, so I'll just passively listen
Don't just say "My opponent doesn't have a card for this" without explaining why it matters in the context of the round; this will not be treated as a response and will garner -0.2 speaks every time you say it
Speed is fine, if you spread, send doc
Signpost
I am a judge where if you want to test run a new case position/debating style/argument, you should. (Assuming you just want to figure out the viability of an argument and are not trying to guarantee a win)
I will give a verbal RFD/comments if the tournament allows and both debaters want it
I don't flow card names anymore because it forces you to properly extend arguments instead of just having your 1AR be "judge, extend x card, they clean conceded it". I care more about arguments than cards, extend the actual warranting and arguments instead of just a card

Common arguments I run: (Decided to add this here so you can see what kind of debater I am and what I'm most comfortable with)

Frameworks: Kant, Hobbes, Pettit, Rawls, Wu Wei
Ks: Model Minority/Orientalism, Security, Capitalism, Academy
Misc: Indexicals, Skep, Determinism, Theories (Disclosure, Condo, ESPEC, etc etc)

PF Stuff:

I'm putting this here just in case I do have to judge PF one day. I am an LDer at heart so I may judge things differently from more technical judges in PF, thus I would personally treat myself like a Lay -> lower Flay judge. (I will still understand and be able to keep up with technical arguments and speed though)

Coinflip should always happen through tab or in front of me, personal preference
NO PARAPHRASING, EVER, I'm not joking, just don't do it, I will not vote on paraphrased evidence
Signposting and weighing are key. Comparative worlds is a great tool for PF because it doesn't use a framework to weigh
Evidence should be able to be provided in under 45 seconds, if you can't produce it by then it'll be treated as an analytic and you should be more organized. I understand if there are technological issues, they will be treated differently
Everything you want to mention in your speech should have been extended in the previous speech
Theory is more sus in PF so probably try not to run it in front of me unless an actual abuse story can be traced that affects the round at large (disclosure is the only exception where it's gonna be a solid no from me)
Unless you give me a clear reason to do a different form of weighing, I default "bigger number wins"

Congress Stuff:

As I primarily do debate events like LD, Congress isn't really my strong suit when it comes to judging but I have done it more than a couple of times (even accidentally making it to Congress finals at NSDA Districts once) so I'm not completely blind and stupid. Here's just a couple of points on how I eval and rank people in a chamber.

I usually start the PO at 3. The PO usually either stays there or move down as they make consistent mistakes. POs rarely move up in my eyes unless the other people in the chamber are actually struggling or making fatal mistakes. It's a lot easier for PO to move down than up
The first four speeches set the tone for the round and I rank based around those four speeches. That means that if the first four speeches were killer, the round is going to be tougher and if the first four speeches were mid, the rankings are going to be more lenient.
Please, for the love of god, motion to move to direct questioning, it's infinitely more interesting and shows me better strategic thinking in the round than one question can
I eval based on three things in a certain order: strategic thinking -> argumentation and incorporation of evidence -> presentation. While Congress is technically as much a speech even as a debate event, I value the more "debate" things of Congress over whether or not you stand up there and be super duper confident and outward. I care more about your choices in argumentation and why/how it's important.
TBH, safest thing to do with me as a Congress judge, treat me like a lay judge. I may have slight opinions because I've done debate and Congress before, I'm more than happy to go along with the flow and adjust to you guys.
(Side tangent here, y'all need to write better bills man, a lot of them either just don't do anything, are boring, or written just so so so so poorly)

Policy Stuff:

Y'all, I did policy debate for the first time at the 2024 NCFL Grand Nationals Tournament in Chicago and I personally had a blast (couldn't say the same for my partner sadly). It was fast-paced, information-heavy, and huge on strategic thinking, it's everything I love about LD, especially prog. Insofar that policy doesn't wildly change on me, a lot of my comments from the LD section can be applied here but I will be more open to most of the arguments in policy as a) you have more time to explain them and b) the same arguments get used for the whole year so they are more refined than having to change every 2 months in LD. Anyways, here's a basic chart on how much I like args in policy

1- T, K, CP

2 - Identity K, t

4 - Performance

Anyways, here's some miscellaneous ramblings from me

Dispo > Condo
More warranted CPS > one card benefit CPS (This might just be an LD thing but CPs tend to be longer with more net benefits, a good example is to take a look at states CP on the policy and LD wikis [States solve vs States solve plus avoid dual sovereignty])
Planks are good insofar that we don't spend half a minute on them
DISCLOSURE IS SUPER IMPORTANT
Tag team CX always, don't even ask, it's a yes
Please actually link the DAs, don't just say the aff links into the DA.
Adv 1 -> Plan -> Adv 2/S >>> Plan -> Adv 1/2/S
Honestly, if you can bring in phil somehow, extra brownie points to you

Steven Linkh Hire

Last changed on Mon July 8, 2024 at 6:03 PM EDT

(TL;DR I am a tech judge, not a huge ran of theory or k and please extend properly if you want an argument evaluated in the round)

Hi! I am Steven (he/him) and I am a current Junior Varsity PF debater at Brooklyn Tech.

Add me to the email chain: slinkh5657@bths.edu

If you send speech docs with fully cut cards (for constructive and rebuttal) to minimize calling cards time (and add me to the email chain), +1 speaks

Here are just some of my preferences:

General

I am a tech > truth judge 99% of the time, which means that I flow everything throughout the round, even if I know it isn't true.

Please don't spread. I can handle a little speed, but not too fast, or else that will probably impact your speaks. Just speak thoroughly and clearly and you'll be happy with your speaks.

Don't worry, I will not flow crossfire, unless something that occurred in crossfire gets brought up in another speech. The only time I'll flow cross is if there is something I didn't get when flowing and its a clarifying question.

If you want a pic of my flow just ask after the round ends and I'll be more than happy to send it to you.

Please use all of your speech time, that's extremely important.

I'm fine with Identity K's: if you run a queer rage k or a queer surveillance k and win on the k you get an auto 30

Constructive

HAVE IMPACTS!!!
Please don't run prog arguments - I'm not super familiar with them, with the exception of a Cap K. Also if your going to run theory, be VERY CLEAR about it, because I'm not super duper familiar with that either
I'm fine with Frameworks - I've ran them a buncha times. If there is no framework or your framework isn't extended throughout the round, I default to utilitarianism, the most good for the most number of people

Rebuttal

Signpost please
Give me an off-time roadmap from here on forward, because it helps me as a judge. The second thing I love after signposting is off-time roadmaps and if you do them, you'll get good speaks. (If you don't know what this is just ask me before the round and I can tell you/teach you how to do one)
For second rebuttal speaker, I would suggest sticking to frontlining -> refuting, but whatever works for you, just please signpost

Summary

Extend your points from Constructive and Rebuttal otherwise it doesn't make it onto the flow and doesn't factor into my decision
I'd prefer you collapse, just to make the round less messy and to give you more time in final focus to weigh (this is just something I like to do - I really highly suggest it)
This is the latest in the round to start impact weighing. If you don't I will be very, very sad.

Final Focus

Really, just tell me why you won the round
Write my RFD for me and make sure to do impact weighing

Be respectful of your opponents and have fun in the debate round. If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them. Also, if you make me laugh or make a minions reference, +1 speaks. Also if you reference the movie up + .5 speaks.

Last thing, I enjoy a great clash on arguments throughout the round. If there is a lot of clash, I will give high speaks to everyone in the debate round. Have fun and if you have any questions don't be afraid to ask me, because after all, this is all a learning experience.

Alex Liu Hire

David Lu Hire

Last changed on Sun July 21, 2024 at 1:37 PM EDT

I competed in PF at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas on the national circuit for four years. I also dabbled a bit in LD and CX.

TL;DR: I am fine with any strategy. Speed is fine, but be clear. I will not flow off a doc. Conceded arguments are true, but only the parts that are conceded. The best arguments are both strategic from a technical perspective and compatible with the average intuition. The “truth” of an argument informs its technical weight. Arguments that are patently untrue or overly esoteric require more extensive investment in evidence, reasoning, and time. I will not vote on an argument I do not understand. Every speech after constructive must answer those before them. Read cut cards, avoid paraphrasing, and send evidence before speaking. Judge instruction and ballot directive language are paramount.

Please add davidlutx@gmail.com to the chain. Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. Let me know if I should save my flow. If anything in this paradigm is confusing, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. Post-round me if my decision is unclear.

Case construction is an underappreciated skill. The constructive should have concretely delineated internal link scenarios, high-quality evidence, and flexible strategic pivots. The burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder. Extensions are a yes/no question but can be crucial in establishing ethos, clarity, and warrant comparison. Frontlines should be comparative. Two-word frontlines are generally insufficient, and new frontlines beyond first summary are illegitimate. I appreciate debaters who utilize the language of risk assessment, where all parts of the argument are collectively weighed, not just an impact in a vacuum. Weighing that is not comparative is meaningless. The only speech where I will reject new weighing is the second final focus. 'Try or die' framing can be remarkably convincing if done properly.

As a debater, I did a considerable amount of research on a wide variety of topics and believe that a substantial portion of the activity extends beyond the actual hour-long rounds we have. Accordingly, I probably care more about evidence than the average judge. Extending the warrants and context presented in evidence can be incredibly helpful. Indicts can be effective if done right. I will scrutinize evidence after the round if its clashing interpretations are critical to my decision, but I won't indict evidence for you. I appreciate well-formatted evidence. I also appreciate well-spun evidence, but unethically miscut or wholly power-tagged evidence is distinct from that.

I am more receptive to ‘zero risk’ than the average policy judge but less receptive than the average PF judge. 'Conceded' defense that is 'terminal' is only relevant if it was explained and presented as such. Warrant and evidence comparison is crucial in breaking clash. This also means that I appreciate debaters who prioritize quality over quantity and emphasize key issues by fleshing them out.

I am very good for internal link/impact turns. These should be coupled with long pieces of clearly delineated defense and extensive weighing in the back half. You cannot say death or patriarchy is good.

I am also great for extinction vs structural violence framework debates. In general, arguments that are unapologetically 'big-stick' or 'soft-left' are enjoyable to judge. Defending anything between those two is probably an uphill battle. Debaters who identify and answer the fundamental questions central to the framework debate are more likely to win than those who attempt to nebulously garner offense under both frameworks. Similarly, framing justifications that devolve into "structural violence causes extinction" or the converse creates messy, unresolvable debates that inevitably require intervention. In a similar vein, I think teams should be more willing to actively exclude offense through a 'form-based' rather than a 'content-based' approach.

I am fine for debates surrounding interpretations, norms, and abuse but find many of them to be exceptionally mind-numbing, unwarranted, or both. I strongly prefer debates concerning in-round abuse that occurred as opposed to hand-wavy proclamations of 'establishing better norms'. You do not need to extend dropped paradigm issues in the back half, but I would prefer a succinct reference to them. Frivolous theory is frivolous. Harder presses on reasonability and RANT can be compelling. Substance crowd-out is a nontrivial impact. An RVI refers to winning off of defense, not offense. I am incredibly receptive to voting on 'offensive counter-interpretations'.

I am familiar with most critical literature bases that are commonly read in PF. This includes critiques surrounding capitalism, biopolitics (Foucault, Agamben), security, international relations, settler colonialism, disability pessimism (Mollow), orientalism, psychoanalysis, transhumanism, fiat, and death. You are not restricted to these, but I will not vote on an argument I cannot coherently explain in my RFD. In general, you should attempt to present these arguments in an accessible, digestible manner. This means fewer buzzwords, more moderate speeds, and minimal backfile-botting.

Debaters should demonstrate a committed understanding of core literature, historical examples, and actor analysis. This event has yet to develop any semblance of norms for critical arguments, so I will be impressed by debaters who truly engage with the central claims of the critique, instead of relying on the many pedantic theoretical objections that proliferated when I debated. Regardless, you should be reading from cut cards and disclosing when reading these arguments.

That being said, the best critiques criticize the underlying commitments and assumptions of the opposing side and utilize such criticism to either moot opposing offense, compare impacts, or forward alternative advocacy. Kritiks that tunnel vision on a single line or some unwritten, circuitous insinuation of the affirmative lack both persuasive value and offense. I believe critiques are a great tool to foster engagement in an honest analysis of this activity in relation to both its competitive nature and many pedagogical termini. In a similar vein, PF needs more "should the affirmative get to weigh the case?" debates. Sweeping, categorical theorizations of international relations, identity, ontology, language, etc. require a tremendous level of warranting that is difficult in a format where the final speeches are two minutes long.

I am indifferent to the many contrived controversies concerning alternatives in PF. The moral panic surrounding rejection alternatives has never made sense to me, especially since much of the literature surrounding said alternatives uses the precise rhetoric of epistemic rejection. However, such advocacies should probably be coupled with a concrete framework-esque push that explicitly answers the big-stick nature of many affirmatives. Absent a clear statement otherwise, alternatives are unconditional. PF is the wrong place for floating PIKs, but I am sympathetic to other forms of 'K tricks' such as 'value to life' and 'extinction inevitable' if explicitly implicated when presented. Whether or not a critique should include an alternative should largely depend on your willingness to defend said alternative, the literature being cited, and the nature of the alternative's material actions (or lack thereof).

Finally, I am not the best judge for strategies that entirely deviate from the topic, engage in a wholesale rejection of debate, and/or primarily garner offense from the inclusion of a 'performance'. I do not have any personal distaste for such arguments but find many of the procedural and analytical objections against these difficult to overcome. Similar thoughts apply to advocacies that are predicated on abstractions of 'discourse' or unfalsifiable appeals to 'empathy'. I am incredibly uncomfortable voting on arguments that concern out-of-round interpersonal conflicts that could be better resolved elsewhere.

You should save your 'tricks' - single sentences that operate independently of the topic, exist in a logical vacuum, and largely depend on concession to become viable - for the other Seven Lakes judges that are probably in the pool (see the last paragraph).

Speaker points are a combination of case construction, strategy, clarity, evidence quality, efficiency, timeliness, and argument selection. You should be kind to your partner, opponents, and judge. Treat the activity and those who partake in it with respect and decency.

For any questions left unanswered by this paradigm: I learned how to debate with and from Vishal Surya, Arnav Mehta, Jason Zhao, Daniel Guo, Bryce Piotrowski, Bryce Sheffield, Tuyen Le, and Nine Abad. I share many of their opinions.

Dillon Ma Hire

Last changed on Wed May 8, 2024 at 4:03 AM EDT

email: dma2147@outlook.com - put me on the chain

Tl:Dr - 1 year out, tech but not hyper tech, have fun. make me laugh.

5 Years PF, mostly under Westfield DM. - Graduated 2024

Edit for PDA May Intramural. Unless you're MS Varisty or above all you need to know is that I know what I'm doing.

Feel free to email me with questions about the ballot or debate in general - you can also ask after/before round. Doesn't matter if I judged you or not tbh, always happy to help.

send docs if over 1k words, or if you are reading tricks, k, Theory, anything like that. Put me on the chain.

Tech>Truth, but like everyone else says, if you say something that sounds patently false, my bar for responses is going to be really low.

Conceded defense is sticky, frontlined defense isn't

If I call clear and you don't slow down or speak more clearly, you're dooming yourself.

I prefer to judge substance but I know how to eval most theory, Ks, tricks and phil, just make sure you aren't doing it to kids who have no clue what Prog or non-trad stuff is please. Its not fun for anyone. If you run any prog on novices I'll drop you immediately. Don't be that guy.

If you want the exact order

Impact debates (Spark, Dedev, etc)
LARP/Trad
Friv theory
Topical Ks
All other Theory
Non topical Ks
Anything else

Send any and all ev you read in the chain. Pf Evidence Ethics is non-existent and I will drop you for it if your opponents call you out on it. (If they don't I just tank speaks and get sad)

Weigh, metaweigh, link compare, implicate, all that good stuff. The more and the earlier the better.

For the love of everything good in this world please signpost

Auto 30s if y'all read any kind of fun impact turns or make the round not boring in general. You will make my day and likely the entire week. I don't think I hack for anything but extinction good, Climate change good, nuke war good, etc etc just make my life better.

If you're a novice and didn't understand any of that - don't worry its not a big deal - if you're interested in learning more - ask in round or send me an email.

I default Util, No RVIs, Competing interps. I presume neg on policy implementation and first on "do the benefits of x outweigh the harms". Give me a reason otherwise for any of those and I'll be willing to vote for it.

Also - this isn't TOC elims, this isn't a bubble round where if you lose you die, your debate career doesn't end with a loss here - so don't get too serious. Debate is something we are supposed to do for fun. Have a sense of humor, crack a joke, be nice to everyone. Some of the best rounds I've had are ones I've lost, but gained friends in the process.

Godslove Matthew Hire

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:15 AM WAT

Starting out 2024 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when am not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments that are solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is absolutely necessary or if it aligns with the spirit of the debate. My evaluation of a good counter proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

Rehan Merchant Hire

Inesh Nambiar Hire

Jason Orlanda Hire

Last changed on Fri July 5, 2024 at 7:03 PM EDT

I’ve decided to update my paradigm for two reasons. First, after judging the first third of the season, I have generated some thoughts based the debates I’ve seen. Second, I thought it would be more helpful to modify my paradigm to give readers a greater sense of how I view debates generally (rather than just a list of bullet points).

I believe that my responsibility as a judge is to adapt to the debaters' arguments rather than the other way around. There are arguments I'm more familiar with than others, but as long as your explanations are well-warranted and digestible, you should feel free running what you want to run (with the exception of arguments that are discriminatory or advocate for death).

For me, doing proper clash and line-by-line is absolutely essential. Debates become the most enjoyable when they feature lots of organized back-and-forth and detailed comparisons between arguments. The most crucial elements of line by line include keeping an accurate flow, proper signposting (“2AC 1—they say x, we say y”), and using your own voice to initiate comparisons (rather than simply reading walls of cards). To elaborate more on that last item, I find myself more persuaded by debaters who acknowledge the areas where they’re behind and explain why they still win (i.e. “even if they win x, we still win because y”) than by debaters who assert that they’re winning on absolutely every level (which is almost never true).

Note: to incentivize clash, if you show me your flows after the debate, and you show me that you used your flows as the basis of your argumentation throughout the debate, I will give you +0.2 speaker points.

Because of everything stated above, I find myself disappointed by debates in which teams either don’t directly clash or in which teams intentionally avoid the need to clash by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This isn’t to say that you can’t initiate a high volume of arguments in front of me, but if it comes at the expense of direct engagement with the other team’s arguments, I’m less likely to enjoy the round (which will be reflected in the speaker points).

Theory

I’m unlikely to reject the team but have pulled the trigger in the past. More often, theory is best used to give yourself more leeway when answering a sketchy argument. Conditionality is generally good but can become less good with multiple conditional contradictory worlds, an absence of solvency deficits, an abundance of conditional CP planks, etc. News affs are good—I wouldn’t burn 10 seconds in the 1NC by reading your shell.

Be sure to slow down a bit when reading all your compressed analytics. Finding in-round examples of abuse isn't intrinsically necessary but does help you out quite a bit.

Topicality

Topic-specific thoughts:While many debaters have asserted that tax-and-transfer is intrinsically the core of the topic, I'm not quite as convinced, as it often seems like affs with taxes sideline discussions of the 3 areas in favor of whole advantages predicated off of whatever taxes they choose to defend. I also am likely to be more skeptical of tax-and-transfer affs that don't have a solvency advocate that advocates for both the tax AND the transfer as a complete package. I can definitely still vote for such affs, but I’m open to listen to teams that can speak to the trends I've been witnessing, and teams that are in favor of tax-and-transfer as their view of the topic should have a more warranted explanation for why that view is good. On another note, I think the complex grammatical structure of the rez means that teams could likely get mileage out of defining more words together.

General thoughts:I default to competing interpretations if not given an alternative. I personally find reasonability at its most compelling/least arbitrary when contextualized to a counter-interpretation (i.e. as long as our counter-interpretation is reasonable enough, you should vote affirmative) rather than when presented in an aff-specific way (i.e. we’re a camp aff so we’re topical). A fun and underutilized aff tactic is to argue why a 1NC interpretation actually harms NEGATIVE ground/limits.

K Aff vs T/Framework

I’ve judged a few of these, and my decisions in them have generally come down to which side gives me a better sense of what their model of debate produces relative to the other team’s. Negative teams are most compelling when they articulate how iterative debates with a resolutional focus produce research skills, engagement through clashing perspectives, and topic-specific knowledge. Affirmative teams are persuasive when they successfully point out limitations of the negative’s model of debate and/or when they argue that the values the negative espouses will be used for detrimental ends absent the affirmative’s method. “Procedural fairness” could be an impact but most teams that have centralized their strategy around it have sounded too tautological to me, so if going for it is your preference then make sure to articulate why fairness is important beyond just saying “debate is a game so fairness must be important.” A K Aff should still have some connection to the resolution/topic area as well as a clearly-signposted advocacy statement. Affirmatives also need to have robust answers to TVAs and switch side debate.

K vs. K

Although I’ve never judged this form of debate, I had a few rounds like these as a debater from the negative side. I think it’s an open discussion whether the affirmative should be able to have a permutation in these debates—the more vague the affirmative’s method is, the more likely I am to defer negative.

Policy Aff vs K

I have three asks for affirmative teams. First, leverage the 1AC, whether in the form of “case outweighs” argument, a disad to the alt, or as an example of why whatever thing the negative criticizes can be good. Second, choose a strategy that synergizes well with the type of affirmative you’re reading. If your 1AC is 8 minutes of heg good, impact turn. If you’re a soft-left aff, link turn by explaining how the solvency of the aff can challenge structures of oppression. Third, prioritize offensive arguments. I’ve seen too many debates where the 2AR spends almost all their time going for the “perm double bind” and underbaked “no link” arguments. Instead, center the debate about why your method is good and makes things better and why the alternative makes things worse.

Negatives should be able to explain their kritiks without heavily reliance on jargon, especially when reading high theory (given my relative unfamiliarity with it). I like it when negatives present detailed link narratives that are specific to the aff, explain how the alternative addresses the proximate causes of the affirmative impacts, and leverage on-case arguments to supplement the kritiks. I like it less when negatives rely on “tricks” (e.g. framework landmines, ontology without impacting it out) or enthymemes (i.e. establishing only part of an argument/dropping a buzzword while expecting me to fill in the blanks for you simply because prevalent K teams make the same argument).

A note on framework: I often find that framework debates often become a wash and thus a secondary part in my decisions. I thus appreciate it when teams initiate a “compromise” of sorts near the end of the debate, such as by conceding part of the other team’s framework and still explaining why you win. This could sound something like “even if they win this debate should be about the consequences of the plan, we meet because the links are reasons why the policy action of the aff makes things worse.”

Other Notes on Policy-Oriented Debates

Counterplans:As mentioned above, I’m not usually enthusiastic to vote down a team on theory. However, if a counterplan cheats, the affirmative can argue that the problematic aspects of the counterplan justify things like intrinsic perms. Counterplans should have solvency advocates—and if you manage to find a hyper-specific solvency advocate related to the aff, that can make me more open to counterplans that I might otherwise deem sketchy (process, conditions, etc.). Topic/aff-specific PICs are valuable because they reward targeted research, but word/language-related PICs are likely less legitimate unless you have a very compelling reason why they make sense in a given debate. I’m ambivalent about multiplank counterplans, but if you claim planks are independently conditional and/or you lack a unified solvency advocate for all the planks, I’m more likely to side with the aff. I won’t judge kick unless you tell me in the 2NR.

Disadvantages:Disad debates are fun as long as they’re presented with qualified evidence that can reduce the need for too much “spin.” Controlling uniqueness is important. Turns case is most valuable when contextualized specifically to the aff scenarios and when it isn’t reliant on the negative winning full risk of their terminal impact. Risk can be reduced to zero with smart defensive arguments and if the quality of the disad is just that bad, but generally you’ll be in a better spot if you find a source of offense (which can be even something as simple as “case outweighs”).

Case:Although case answers are (sadly) generally underutilized by the negative, they have influenced quite a few of my recent decisions, so negative teams should feel compelled to make case debating a more crucial part of their strategy in front of me. Internal link and solvency takeouts (both evidenced and analytical) are much more persuasive to me than reading generic impact defense.

Bohan Pan Hire

Wayne Pinnock Hire

Isabella Russo Hire

Hayagiriv Sajja Hire

Last changed on Mon July 8, 2024 at 6:25 PM CDT

Hey all! I'm Hayagiriv (pronounced Hi-ya-griv), currently a varsity member in PF at Eagan. I've been to a few national tournaments, NatQuals, and I compete regularly on the local circuit. I'm well read about the topics that are provided, so don't worry about needing to over-explain anything to me! I'm a flow judge - I will only judge what's on the flow. But like... if y'all want a more detailed explanation about my judging style, then keep reading! If you have any questions about anything in my paradigm, want to ask something completely unrelated about debate, use me as a resource, go for it. Debate is an educational activity and I'm all for educating the people.

Truth v Tech

Generally, I'm tech over truth. This means that, if an argument is introduced into the round, and the argument isn't addressed by the opposition, the argument stays. The argument can be as stupid as "The sky is typically green at night", and I'll let it slide. I PERSONALLY will not buy it, but if it goes uncontested by the opponents, then as an unbiased judge, I'll have to consider it in the context of the round.

The reason why I'm tech > truth is because you as the competitors shouldn't leave stuff up to the judge - that's a dangerous game you're playing if you let the judge think for themselves, because that means that they input their own unpredictable biases into the round. I agree, the sky is NOT green at night, but if it's something more ambiguous like "Russia's military is currently stronger than the US's in the Arctic", then it's a bit clearer as to why having a judge's personal bias into the round can be problematic for both teams. While there are benefits of truth > tech judging, I'm going to stick to tech > truth.

TL;DR: I'm tech > truth because I'm lazy and don't wanna have to think about whether I like an argument - after all, I'm not debating, y'all are.

General stuff I wanna see!

I want to hear you explain why your argument matters, not only to me as the judge, but also in the round. (Especially in Summary and Final Focus!) I want to know what argument you're interacting with when you introduce an A2 or a Block in Rebuttal. In Summary, if you're extending case or weighing, I'd like to know what that means to me as a judge. An example might be: "Putting US military in the Arctic does X, this is good/bad because Y." I need to see the "because Y" part, because otherwise, I don't know why I should even vote on that argument in the first place. That being said, just make things very clear to me as the judge.

I prefer 1 very solid, very well explained argument, over 50 garbage, meaningless claims. Quality > Quantity.

Please signpost. It makes my job a lot easier. Just be clear about what you're responding to and number your arguments when possible!

I can handle about 250 wpm, but after that, I start to lose you. I will understand what you are saying, but if you want me to have it on the flow to evaluate what you're saying after round, I'll be struggling. Remember, I only evaluate whatever I put on the flow, otherwise I can't.

Weighing

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS GOOD IN THIS WORLD, WEIGH. I need you to tell me why your arguments/your side should be preferred over the opponents. If I don't get weighing, I will consider the argument, but I won't know why I should vote for it. Weighing doesn't have to be long, just please weigh. It's a cardinal sin to not weigh - just because I do not know how I'm supposed to evaluate an argument when I don't get weighing. Meta-Weighing is also super rad and snazzy but if you don't do it it doesn't really matter - but I like to see meta-weighing.

General things about me!

I don't flow cross - Basically... Cross is for y'all to discuss arguments. I'll listen to it, but I will not put the pen to the paper for anything in Cross. If there's something you wanna say that you found out in CX, you HAVE to bring it up in a speech.

RFDs, or Reason for Decisions - If BOTH TEAMS consent, then I will disclose my decision and my reason for it, as well as any questions that y'all have. That being said, feel free to say no if you don't wanna openly discuss the outcome of the round, because it's totally okay to say that. Again, I'll only disclose if BOTH teams are okay with me doing so.

Defaulting/Presumptions - Typically, the practice is to default to the Neg or the the side that advocates for the SQuo. However, I don't like doing that because it puts it up to chance and whoever just HAPPENS to be on the Neg side in that round gets the victory. Instead, I'm just going to default to the side that did the "better" debating. The thing is, in rounds where I have to default, there probably isn't going to be a lot of good debating, but if there's things I liked, such as weighing, or clean case extensions, and stuff like that, I'll go for the side that did a better job. THAT BEING SAID please don't let it come down to that, I wanna judge good debate rounds.

Progressive Debate (Like K's and Theory) will be judged like any other argument in the round. However, if you bring up something stupid like Santa Claus is a consumerist god, (yes, I've hit this argument...) then I will be very annoyed. Use theory for the right reason, with great power comes great responsibility. (If you don't know what Prog Debate is, don't worry about it, it probably won't be relevant to your round anyway.)

No matter what happens - My decision as a judge isn't regarding you as a person, nor you as a debater. As a varsity debater, I understand how important the W or L might seem. However, I urge you to NOT take my decision to be the same as telling you that you're a good or bad debater. All the W or L means is whether your performance in that specific round was better than your opponents or not. What's most important is gaining experience and getting better.

Just have fun - Debate is meant to be fun, and I don't wanna have to judge a round that's full of aggression. Passion is good, aggression... that's a line that shouldn't be crossed. So please! Have fun.

Stavan Shah Hire

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 1:52 AM PDT

I am a Junior at Fairmont ...debated PF under code Fairmont SS

I debated on the circuit since 2021. Qualled to TOC all three years, and would say I am ranked decently on the bid leaderboard and debate drills.

Add stavanshah21@gmail.com AND fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com to the email chain.

Strike Preferences: (These are just my preferences, but I will evaluate anything, but the lower the preference the worse I will be at evaluating

Theory - 1

Substance/LARP- 2

Kritik - 3

Friv Theory - 3

Non-T Kritik - 4

Performance - 4

Tricks - 4

High Theory - 5

TL/DR

Tech>>truth. Weigh in summary, give me good warranting. Defense is not sticky, so you better extend. I will not evaluate new offensive weighing in either FF. Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half, EVERY SPEECH. Weigh anything you want evaluated. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced. Go as fast as you want, I debate at 300+ wpm, but be clear and send a doc. Clarity>>>> Speed. Just because I was a fast debater doesn't mean I can flow speed well, and I refuse to look at a doc unless I'm explicitly told to look at a card after round, or if intervention is needed. (worst case). I can handle the most techy args yall want to throw at me, but if you are going fast there is a good chance I miss smth cuz I'm just not the greatest flower so err on the side of caution.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN, AND DO WHAT YOU MUST WITHOUT BEING PROBLEMATIC.

How I Judge:

If my paradigm is unclear, my favorite judges are Eli Glickman, Katheryne Dwyer, Bryce Piotrowski, Andy Stubbs, and Gabe Rusk;

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

If you do not do this, then I don't know where to flow what, and you will get an RFD that you don't like

Cross:

This is for you, not me. I will listen to it, but not evaluate it.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too, but blippy NLs from the first rebuttal don't all need to be answered here line by line, but should be grouped and gut-checked or somehow responded too, otherwise a bad blippy NL can be blown up, and if I have no ink on it, I will extend it on my flow.

Summary:

Summary needs to extend any defense or offense that you want evaluated. Defense is not sticky. For case you need to extend UQ, Link, IL, Warrants, and an Impact. The only new turns or defenses I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team. ANY OFFENSIVE WEIGHING NEEDS TO START HERE AT THE LATEST.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but it can't be offensive. No new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, there is no benefit from spreading in FF. For case you need to extend UQ, Link, IL, Warrants, and an Impact. Please properly extend and call out people for extending properly. I have won so many rounds just cus offense wasn't properly extended in FF and also lost rounds on the same thing. PLEASE don't be afraid to point out missing parts of an extension and explain why that means I can not vote for the other team.

———PART II: TECHNICAL STUFF———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume to a coin flip (aff heads/neg tails). Please read presumption warrants if you would want me to presume any other way.

Evidence:

PLEASE I URGE YOU TO CALL A EVIDENCE CHALLENGE IF THERE IS A RULES VIOLATION, BUT DO IT RIGHT I NEED PROOF, I look to NSDA rules unless a tourney specifies otherwise!!!

—Evidence §1—

I will not accept paraphrased evidence. I treat paraphrased cards as equal in link strength to analytics. If there are two pieces of competing evidence that will determine the round and both teams want me to look at it... and one piece is paraphrased, then I will not even do the comparison and default too nonparaphrase ev. Whether or not you paraphrase, YOU MUST have cut cards, if you don't I will cap your speaks at 26 and you should strike me( speaks cap does not apply for MSPF, NPF or JVPF).

—Evidence §2—

When evidence is called for, take less than 1 minutes to pull up the cards or it comes out of your prep. (Oh wait we should be sending docs hmmm.) Marking evidence isn't prep time, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, I will start running prep or I might just tank speaks. Also you can't just say mark the card, you gotta tell me at which word you are marking the card, if you are gonna just skip the card you gotta tell me the author name which you skipping. If I notice clipping like at all, and the other team does not catch it, your speaks will be the lowest possible, but I will still eval the round off the flow

—Evidence §3—

If you misconstrue evidence—you know who you are—and I find out, I will either drop you or give you the lowest possible speaks, depending on the severity of the misconstruction (I am more than willing to assign an L20 or below). If you catch your opponents misconstruing evidence, call it an independent voting issue (IVI) and I will treat this as a pre-fiat round-ending argument if the evidence is sufficiently misconstrued, but the IVI needs to be fleshed out, I am not voting someone down on a thoughtless 5 line blip.

Email Chains:

Whether or not the tournament is online I will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; sending a doc is a good way to get a speak boost.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are negotiable on some very extenuating circumstances (if you know then you know)

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+) but be clear, if I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 250 words per minute. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (300+ wpm) paraphrased cards there is no way you get above 27 speaks. 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.

Also, I hope yall understand that just cause I was a very fast debater it does not translate onto my judging capabilities. Like I genuinely am a slow flower, I needed a doc when I was a debater to flow, and when judging I refuse to look at a doc, meaning if I can't flow it, then I can't eval it. Tech does not mean speed. This isn't to say do not go fast, I will understand you, but more of be aware my flowing skills are not the best

Trigger Warnings:

IDC read TW bad or good, it is just another shell at the end of the day.

POGRESSIVE DEBATE———

This is probably my favorite part of the debate. I enjoy theory debate; I run theory frequently. You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory; 'I don't know how to respond' is not a sufficient response.

Theory:

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

I like theory. I think the frivolous theory is funny if run with a nonmalicious intent. I'll evaluate anything, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks unless its your first time. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can, let me know after the round and I will help as much as I can. I

I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Spirit > Text. Stupid PF thing but ig I should clarify. If you read NO RVI's just in a standard fashion but you lose ur shell to the C/I it is OFFENSE for them aka its a Offensive Counter Interp OCI. They are proving their norm is better thus I should vote for them.

I will still vote for RVIs if you win them, but never have I seen a round where RVI's matter cus it ends up being a Shell vs CI Shell rd. Now if you want the NO RVI to preclude the other team from getting offense from the CI, it must be implicated explicitly otherwise I treat the CI as offensive as described above. If that is the case only then must the opposing team win RVI's to get offense from a CI. Please do not make me intervene on this paradigm issue, but rather win the flow on NO RVIS precluding or not precluding a CI from being offensive, so I don't have to decide the round off my beliefs. Like it can completely change the CI from being easy offense for the other team, into terminal defense on your shell, meaning I gotta vote on smth else.

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate. Even if you read turns or a DA on a shell but you don't give a CI, you can win their model is bad, but I don't have another model to prefer meaning either I have to intervene or presume. You will not like it either.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you're speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. You don't need to extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in constructive; you must respond to your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this, and it better be a good one).

Topicality:

TBH I do not have much experience with running or hitting T, but I have run it a couple of times and went for it. I'd evaluate it like any other shell because that's just what it is. You need to do the proper weighing, implications, layering, etc.

Kritiks:

I have run Ks around 15 times, however, I am not the finest judge for these rounds, my partner was much better with this. That aside I can def evaluate the K, you just gotta explain the lit and SLOW DOWN if I'm unfamiliar. ROJ>= ROB >> all other offense, unless there is proper up layering done. If you are running a K, you better be winning offense under your ROB. K's under no circumstances should be conditional, with the short speech times we have in PF. However, you can argue why they can be dispositional. I'm more familiar with orientalism, security, cap, and queer K.

Note on K's, I used to and still do write a lot of prep-outs to K's, and my biggest takeaway so far is either get into the link or methods debate. PF times do not give us enough time to do the whole FW thing like LD and CX do. Second, if you'll wanna go 5 off on a K go ahead, but if that is your strat, you need to uplayer procedural fairness > ROB pretty well. Take my advice it is easier to beat a K on a methods debate, rather than a shell, but do what you do best.

On the perm, just saying perm do both (or any other perm you wanna do) as a response is not enough. A perm functions as a test of competitiveness and unless you challenge how the K is competitive directly, I presume it is. Going for the perm is cool but I gotta understand how the perm functions as offense or a reason to pickup the aff/neg.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but also funny, go for them if you wish, but who knows if I will understand them.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks (unless you have violated any previous clauses related to speaker points), if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s. A performance contradiction is not a TKO, and you better give me warranting why the performance contradiction matters and why it warrants DTD. Saying they "perfcon" and its a TKO is gonna annoy me and I def will not evaluate it when that is all I am given.

OTHER DEBATE EVENTS———

- Everything above applies except I will be lwk clueless of the structure especially if this is policy or ld. I would love a case debate, but do what you must, but expect the unexpected.

Scott Situ Gabrielino High School None

Hanming Sun Hire

Ruiyu Tang Hire

William Trinh Hire

Last changed on Wed July 17, 2024 at 12:55 PM PDT

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.

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 outweighs

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.

Stella Wu Hire

Last changed on Thu July 11, 2024 at 11:08 AM CST

Hey y’all, I’m Stella, I debate for Taipei American. pls add me to the email chain: stellaxywu222@gmail.com

TLDR: WARRANTS > empirics/evidence. I love implications. If it isn’t in summary, then it’s not in FF. If you’re running a theory, K, or T, drop the jargon, send a doc. Don’t miscut evidence. Please collapse (preferably on only one contention). Pretty pretty please.

If you bring me applesauce (not the cup type), +0.5 speaks.

General:
Tech > Truth. BUT, everything should try to have a buyable, somewhat believable warrant. Like if you read a blippy empiric that probability of war increases by 400%, explain why. If you don’t extend warrants and just taglines, I’ll be very sketch to vote on it if your opponent calls you out.

Don’t be afraid to use analytics. Sometimes they’re intuitive and true, even if there’s no evidence.

Speaks are a social construct. It is a myth. All y’all will get high speaks unless you are problematic, rude, or make people feel unsafe.

HAVE FUN!

Case:
Please enunciate. Especially if you’re speaking fast. And if you're speaking fast, I'd prefer a doc.

Rebuttal:
Second rebuttal should frontline. Otherwise I’ve seen every type of rebuttal under the sun—don’t be afraid to take strategic leaps in rebuttal if you think it’ll pay off.

Summary/FF:
Please be consistent.
Please collapse.
Please weigh.

If you have a squirrely argument, or any argument that is more nuanced/weird, slow down, explain it. If I don’t understand it, I’m less inclined to vote on it, even if it’s clean, because I wouldn’t actually know how you get from point A to point B to my ballot.

Weighing is beautiful. When you do weighing, rather than having 5 reasons why you outweigh, tell me why the 2-3 ways you outweigh should be prioritized. Metaweigh. Tell me why probability matters more than magnitude. Why does magnitude matter more than timeframe? Etc.

Cross:
I’m not evaluating cross. But cross = speaks. If you’re rude, it’s probably going to get docked.

Progressive:

I’m familiar with theory, basic Ks (cap, setcol, fem, etc.) and T.

Disclose if you want. Paraphrase if you want. I think paraphrasing is fine if it helps you explain cards that use lots of jargon/convoluted sentences (doesn’t mean I won’t vote on paraphrase theory, just probably a higher threshold to convince me). HOWEVER, if you paraphrase and your opponents call you out for miscut evidence (with or without theory) and I agree, L20. This is what gives paraphrasing a bad rep. Don’t do it. If you don’t paraphrase and somehow you STILL miscut evidence, same deal. Evidence ethics is very important. Other than that, y’all are going to have to point out the abuse and tell me why it’s an abuse.

While I understand prog, I’m not the best with jargon. If you say “they bite the link” it will take me 10 seconds to remember what that means and that probably means 10 seconds where I’m not comprehending your speech. Just say they concede the link and we will be all good (and any other jargon).

Also, if you plan on running prog args, you’ll probably be speaking fast. Please send a speech doc. If you don’t send a speech doc and you’re going to spread T + disclosure + respond to a K, I’m probably going to try to process what you’re saying, catch half of it, resort to flipping a coin or looking at substance, and cry about the wall of words I just had to listen to for 45 minutes.

If you want to run friv theory, more nuanced Ks etc., I’m probably not the judge. However, if you run out of strikes and you want to read friv while I’m judging, pretend I’m a lay because I have basically no idea how those work in PF, but I’m pretty quick at understanding if you’re explaining things well.

At the bottom, I love debate. It’s very near and dear to me, and I want as many people as possible to enjoy this activity. So if you are any -ist, really rude, or make people feel unsafe, I will drop you immediately, report you to tabroom, and give you the lowest speaks I can possibly give.

Vivek Yarlagedda Hire

Last changed on Thu July 4, 2024 at 7:06 PM CDT

Hey, I'm Vivek! I debated for four years on the national circuit for 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*

‎‎

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.

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 encouraged.

- Feel free to email me with any and all questions.

- Above all, have fun!

- vy

Meiqi Yuan Harbinger Academy

Last changed on Fri July 19, 2024 at 10:01 AM EDT

Hi, my name is Meiqi Yuan (she/they), and I'm a former debater with 5+ years of experience in PF/BP/WSD (*some of my achievements are listed at the end of this paradigm*). I've done some research on the February topic but I'll try to be as "blank slate" as possible.

Add me to the email chain: amberyuan546@gmail.com (it's not the one I registered on Tabroom since I’m using a second laptop for flowing/checking evidence).

Preferences:

I am largely tech > truth because of my previous experiences as a debater, so even if something goes against my knowledge/understanding, I'll still count it as long as your opponents don't point it out/refute it.

Case

I’m fine with any speed below 250 wpm or my brain will start malfunctioning. If you really need to spread, I would greatly appreciate you sending over your speech doc so I don’t miss anything important.

Rebuttal

Signpost, please and thank you.
Please frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
Weighing in as early as rebuttal is oftentimes a good way to give me a sense of what your strategy is.

Summary

Weighing and extending are very important. Provide a clear comparison between you and your opponents to prove why your side should win. Don't forget to extend the link in summary and not just repeat numbers from a card.
If you use weighing jargon, please tell me specifically why that is the case - don’t just say “outweigh on magnitude” and immediately move onto the next thing without explaining.

Final Focus

No new arguments/evidence
If you are collapsing, make sure that the argument you're going for aligns w/ ur summary.

Other random stuff

Be punctual in terms of showing up for the round.
I’ll be timing your speeches and prep but please still keep track of your own prep time. Please don’t rely on asking “judge, how much prep time do I have left” in case I lose track.
I probably won’t click into a certain piece of evidence unless you tell me to do so in your speech.

Theory/Ks:

I’ve never judged these types of round and rarely encountered them when I was competing, so unfortunately I don’t have much qualifications/experience in terms of this but would try my best to evaluate.

Ground rules:

Respect each other and be nice. NO racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic etc. behavior or I will drop you.
Try your best and have fun :)

*Some achievements mentioned before*:

-TOC Asia WSDC 2022 Open Div. Finalist

-Winter WSD Championship 2022 Finalist

-Marist Ivy Street Invitational 2022 Varsity PF Semifinalist

-37th Annual Stanford Invitational JVPF Quarterfinalist, No.7 ranked spk out of 200-ish people

-Doxbridge WSDC 2022 Open Gold Div. Quarterfinalist

-48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament JVPF double-octafinalist

-I’ve also competed in the Chinese PF circuit for a while, winning the NHSDLC national championship in 2021 and a few regional tournaments here & there

Login to Tabroom

2nd Annual Winter Championship

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Debate Paradigm List

Judges