Tabroom.com

The Genesis Challenge

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Anthony Babu Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sun July 7, 2024 at 6:53 AM EDT

Hello. I am a parent judge.

I am a 77-year-old parent of 8, grandparent of 64, great-grand-parent of 512, and great-great-grand-parent of 4096. You may know me from when I was I was on the judging panel when President Trump defeated Slow Biden in the 2020 election, in a vote of 538-0! In sincerity, you may know my family from

-Our peaceful protest on January 6 (release my Prisoners, Joe)

-Our Musicality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCYZ3pks48

-Our favorite Child: KANYE!

I am faithful to family, friends, faith, and life. I am pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Trump, Christian, and 100% PROUD AMERICAN! When you are debating, I am your Superior! I have a PhD in arcumentative Writing and Philosophy. In my teenage prime, I debated for Beechwood High in Kentucky in AMERICAN parliamentary where I won the Local County Championship against my arch-rival and CRIMINAL Bill (Cosby!) Clinton. Also, if I see you have competed in British parliamentary or world Schools debate, I will Report you to the Ethics Officer! AMERICA FIRST!!!

When I am judging you, do not make statements that are objectively wrong. This includes anything I disagree with. It is up to the skill of the debater to interpret in that regard.

I will NEVER give more than 15 speaker points! We are alaready in debt of points and I wont raise the Ceiling! I am fiscally and speakily Conservative!

I will judge off of a Secret math equation, which can Be found at this Driver: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Kkn_KZ0Nkq4x-e2EMpzyYF87X_FTE9oByxUh9OndSKc/edit#slide=id.p

Here are some of my beliefs about Debate!:

-No theory! That is what the climate change Liars use to back up their FALSE claims!!!

-Do not spread, because that is for the fascist liberal radical left spreading LIES about the 2020 election!!

-Do not use TRICKS, TREATS ONLY!!

-What is a KRITIK? Only THING I WILL be critiquing is your SPELING!!

-Why do people critique (spelled rigt) CAPITALISM? Capitalism is the best, and I know because my great-grandchild EUGENE is AN ACCOUNTANT!!

-What is a PHIL? I Only know the DOCTOR!!!

-I judge off of CROSSFIRE. The louder your voice, the better!

-I have ALL the best Cognition with ALL the top Grammar. If You don't speak like me, you DEPORT your chance. Cheek me out.

Edit: I have Seen people saying my paradigm is the GREATEST on tab room. KEEP TABROOM GREAT! BUT, also I have seen People STEALING my paradigm... If you do, I will put you into a COFFVEFE!!

Julien Benchek Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 7:38 AM EDT

email: julienbenchek@uchicago.edu

ask a fun question before round and i'll know you read my paradigm :)

---

I like smart people and arguments. Be smart

I debated pf for four years. graduated 2023

notably, I do a college debate format now called APDA - there's no evidence in APDA, its just logic - this may affect my judging style

--- important general stuff --- read this section

do not attempt to spread. other speed is fine

I don't care about rhetoric... please

good logic will beat a random piece of evidence unless its a fact claim

Be more analytical than you think. This means explain every step in the chain of every argument you make and weigh it well.

depending on my mood, I will either:

- weight arguments that are analytically sound over those that are not

or maybe

- completely disregard arguments that are missing any single step in the link chain

* i'm not a truth person. basically, I won't intervene to ADD anything to either team. if an argument is conceded, I won't ADD defense to it even if its wrong in the real world. BUT this means I also won't ADD warranting, impacting, weighing, etc... If your argument is conceded but you don't explain why it matters, i'm not gonna look at it (i probably won't be insanely strict about this but i might so just do it)

** I don't think you can be TOO analytical but don't be repetitive or annoying. the whole point is for your arguments to be smart and solid, not to check boxes

--- unimportant specific stuff

scope weighing is the only weighing that doesn't need a lot of explanation. if you say timeframe or reversibility or especially probability, you need to take actual time to explain it (i probably will be strict about this - if you just say we outweigh on probability i'm fr not gonna write it down). I also don't believe in strength of link weighing... this is literally just how judges evaluate rounds you don't need to say it explicitly

all progressive stuff is fine except performances cause that's not debate now is it... notes:

- i will prob intervene here more than in normal debates. prob won't be super techy about dropping blips and so on

- logical debate only - you can read ev if its in the arg already but i'm not gonna give it preference

- if your opponents are actually inexperienced in this, I will be receptive to a "this isn't fair, I don't understand" claim if done well

- all the analytical stuff from above applies extra here. make smart arguments

- i have no biases. feel free to make any argument even if you think some judges would think its politically incorrect. just don't be blatantly anything-ist or attack your opponents personally. you can be mean to their arguments just not them (i.e you can say "this argument is stupid")

- notably, i know pfers feel cool when they say "a is the interpretation..." but i'd prefer if you read theory formatted just like any other case argument

- none of this affects my decision but i only actually believe paraphrasing theory; evidence standards exist? if you read something else that's normal i'll evaluate, if you read something else that's mad weird you may have to actually convince me

sticky defense is not a thing

you gotta frontline in second rebuttal

no new stuff in final focus. preferably no new weighing in first final focus. definitely none in second; if first final has new weighing point it out and i will evaluate the old weighing first, BUT you are also allowed to weigh your old weighing against their new weighing a little if you want to (i.e. "this weighing is new but here's why our summary weighing beats it anyway")

speaks are based off of how smart and strategic you are in the round. if you win easily but your arguments are all under-warranted and silly, you will get something mid

might intervene really hard on bad evidence, might not

i have no like "ethical" or "moral" interest in pf debate

dont pretend to be professional. if you act angry/serious in cross or if you refer to me as "judge", this will be annoying to me. chill out, im 19

oh yeah send me any evidence but don't send me a speech doc, i'm not flowing off of that. that's weird

---

ask me any questions about anything at all

Satyam Bhushan Outreach Debate

Solomon Binyaminov Outreach Debate

Rebecca Clark Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sat July 6, 2024 at 3:14 PM EDT

add me to the chain, rebeccaclark08273@outlook.com (outlook acct. weird, right?)

feel free to ask questions!!!

PREF SHEET:

1- larp aff v k : this is usually the kind of debate that I typically do & think about the most OR larp v larp (still fine, i just like to see kritikal engagement)

1/2 - generic lit kvk or kaff v larp, im best for racial/semio cap, setcol, lib, anthro, sec, Baudy and kinda deleuze, etc). im white and will never read pess myself, so keep in mind that my familiarity will be lower!

2 - T/Th

4-Phil. I'm best for Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, Locke, Levinas, and Rousseau. I've read some of their work-- like The Leviathan, the Critique of Practical Reason, Justice as Fairness, etc. if you're reading a dif philosopher, just overexplain a little.

5-tricks... obv there's somewhat of a threshold. if you read 3 minutes+ of tricks, obviously you didnt adapt to me LOL

Misc stuff:

LD small school debater. I'll compete under Equality Independent RC, Clark Independent RC, or CD Hylton RC. Look to the paradigms of (in order of who ill reflect the most): Anirv Ayyala, Sean Wallace, Lydia Wang, Parker Traxler, and Vishal Sivamani.

tech>truth

Is debate just a game? idk, you tell me

I dislike judge intervention

cross is binding, but i dont really care what you use this time for.

i do not care if you flow the final speaking team if you're done debating, but dont start playing around loudly on your phone. You can sit still for 2/3 minutes. better yet, go and disclose while they're speaking.

please don't try and suck up to me for the ballot... it's super obvious and unpersuasive

ev ethics matter and im willing to stake the round on them... but please consider whether it's worth my ballot. If you arent sure, urging me to drop the card will be much more persuasive. (for example, they misspelled some word in the title of the article but the link works. I really dont care.) i wont vote somebody down for an error that makes no difference in the ability to ethically engage in debate.

I love it when the 1nc is super specific to the aff & when you show me you're actually reading their cards, can extrapolate something out of them, and are not talking to a wall. rehighlight cards!!!

also, i think more 1ars and 1ncs should put analytics onto the case page... Have cards for what needs them ofc, but a coherent analytic that's barely answered is prob more persuasive.

i vibe with 1 off k ncs, 6 off larp, etc. most ive read is 9 off and i was a little disoriented so prob dont go above that

I TAKE JUDGE INSTRUCTION SERIOUSLY. tell me what to do and why, and ill try my best to honor that!!! if another team gives some silly reason for me to prioritize their impacts over yours, please explain why the reason is silly.

^^ i dont mind you reading generically progressive stuff against more traditional debaters, but there is a limit. Flay w/extinction impacts? Yeah of course. Must spec military presence? ehhhh... ill be lenient. Indexicals, spikes, and unheard-of paradoxes? no.

Also, I wont flow if you're completely inaudible, but you should have analytics in doc if you're hardcore spreading them

I default to around a 28.5 and go up or down based on what you do right. II used to be a speaks demon but my opinion has changed and speaks are pretty discriminatory. Please don't put me in a bad mood and make me question that. I'll adjust to the tournament rubric regardless.

If both opponents read and extend 30 speaks th, I'll give all 30s :) ... the interp and warranting both have to be extended though.

You should 100% collapse in your final speeches, but if you're seriously winning & dont need your full time, I dont mind you ending the speech early or splitting the time just in case.

Everything aside -- Don't be mean to new debaters or people that you think are "worse" than you. That's disgusting, and I'll tank your speaks and/or vote you down for it :)

^^ let me clarify because somebody clearly didnt read this. Do not scoff, roll your eyes, or laugh at your opponents. Stop making so many judgmental faces while they speak. This is a sliding scale, and I am the one who decides whether you are being egregiously rude. if you really think you're better, keep it to yourself or leave. Don't say your reactions are natural or throw a fit... a natural jerk is still a jerk and the only thing benefitting from your behavior is your ego.

Theory:

okay so I like theory debate -- if im judging pf and you think this is the time to read shoe or clothing theory, i will eval it, but any turn on objectification is going to be VERY persuasive and I will subconsciously think that you should not have attended the tournament (there are exceptions -- friends hitting each other and goofing off is funny.)

regardless, ive been going for th and ivis a lot lately (as of reaching the end of janfeb WANA 2024) so keep that in mind.

Unless told otherwise, I default to: Th is highest layer, no RVIs, reasonability, DTA if possible, in round abuse, and safety>all.

Also, I don't mind friv, but it should be against an opponent that seems fine with engaging. friv v friv is super funny and extra speaks for making this activity more fun :)

FOR DISCLOSURE SPECIFICALLY, I STRONGLY BELIEVE this is a good norm. "New affs dont have to be broken!" is not warranted or persuasive. I also wont NOT vote for disclosure because "the aff is generic/larp/trad"... I will be subconsciously inclined to hack against you because if it's so generic, there was no good reason to NOT disclose.

^note, I think those interps about posting certain websites on your wiki are stupid. Forcing somebody to endorse an organization with the threat of reading theory is pretty messed up

that said, idk if this is just an LD thing, but please stop NOT reading paradigm issues. if you dont read prefer norm setting & you're reading tsubsets to an iraq syria aff, they pretty much have to justify in round abuse and "iran is literally main offense & all of their DAs still link" for me to not vote on T

i know pfers generically never read topicality because plan texts arent allowed, but it would be so strategic if you guys did.

also, a good 2nr on th/t is impressive to me -- touch on subjectivity, tell me how to frame the round, preempt extra 2ar explanation, collapse on & weigh a standard, etc. ("i extended the interp and violation, i collapsed on a standard & lbl responses, i extended paradigm issues... and i'm only 2 minutes into the 2nr. what do i do now???")

Also IMO pfers should read disclo. If the tournament is even somewhat prog, they dont have contacts on their wiki, and I'm judging your round, you should probably go for it.

finally i WILL eval spec th. i dont think it's nearly as bad as judges claim... and if it is, that should make the response easier, so there's a natural checkback.

I probably prefer that you at least have some connection to the topic, but that can really be said about anything so read whatever you think you can win. I lightly presume the aff should be topical, i think tva is a valid argument with examples, you should pls go slower on non t lit if it isnt generic, etc.

^^ it is impressive to me if an NC can beat a kaff without relying on T. Do whatever will make you win though

please have good responses to the impact turns on t and the subjectivity flows. Ballots fail, alt causes, state heuristics, negating identity bad, state progress possible, policymaking good, whatever.

Please read and frame TVA/SSD. They're pretty persuasive & if you win them, I'll judge T as an aff burden.

K (general):

im most familiar with cap (racial and semio,) setcol, anthro, baudi, lib, generic security, etc. I'm kinda familiar with psycho & heidegger lit but not with debating it, so take that as you will. The biggest value of the k in my mind is your subjectivity, so ill be happy if you read solid stuff... and if i'm not familiar with your lit/it isnt listed above, please slow down.

also method v method debates are cool but often very messy… check the pref sheet

I dont know if it's my experience with people not going for it against me, but it'd be nice to see a good 2nr (or... final PF speech? idk what those are called) that's going for the k

check pf section for specific notes

Tricks:

I am not a tricks debater, and i would def say to NOT go hard on them if I am judging, (maybe just dont read them at all,) but I understand absolute generics. "calc solves" is an acceptable response to xeno and most other paradoxes. indexicals?? please do not spread these logical tricks that go "if p, then q, but never q if p, which means q cannot be true, which means p cannot be true, which means nothing can be true so you'd think presume neg, but you actually vote aff instead because of the decision-making paradox." im fine with them but at least give me a second to catch up

(only go for tricks if you think it is the only way you'll win the round)

PF:

I don't do this event, but the main purpose of PF is to be accessible anyways.

update: idc if you read plans. counterplans still a no, but plans are fine. ill just be kinda lenient on responses

JUST ASSUME I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT YOUR TOPICS. If you're using some niche acronym, read the full title the first time. I'll try my best, but that's on you if I have a ton of question marks on my flow.

Cross: Grand-cross weirds me out. This and all other cross-ex-es are binding but not acceptable as answers on flow. If you let somebody dominate cross-ex and it hurts you, I might lower your speaks. Also, I'm cool with dropping grand-cross for prep.

why dont pfers read presumption leans aff/neg triggers? or presumption at all? what? you should do this, it would be funny.

Ks: Ks in pf are weird. I'll be holding you to the same standards as a non pfer. Give me good framing, provide a clean link, tell me how to do my job, etc, and I'll try to be a good judge for you. Show me why you go for the kritik, aside from it just being strategically good in some places.

idk how to eval alts for the sake of this event...I just assume that I should teach them as a question of uniqueness and not solvency.

I have heard about PFers reading fake authors thru Medium (Day 24?) (Lincoln Douglas is one of your fake authors, really?) ... this is fine if we're in friv v friv rounds like mentioned above, but I will give you the lowest speaks possible in a serious round and not eval the evidence if you're caught.

correction, ill give you the L too

Lincoln Douglas, Robert Day, Junaid Ali, Daquavius Daquavion Howard (ok that one is pretty funny), etc?????

ANYWAYS

LD specific

most things (like ks, larp, and th): go to general notes

Phil: Show me your understanding of these philosophers. If you are reading Locke, you should know what Locke says (outside of what you're just reading.) Be specific. Justify your value premise. Why should I prefer it? Also, I won't auto-affirm or negate on phil unless the mechanism is clearly explained in the constructive & extended ofc.

also, a lot of trad and flay lders read phil without any knowledge of it. If you are reading kant, you need to know what a priori means. If you are reading rawls, you need to know what the veil of ignorance is. If you go for phil and the opp goes hard into the lit against you, even if you are more traditional, i will be happy to vote on it. it is your burden to research your philosophers

Kent Logan Ernst Outreach Debate

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 10:00 AM CDT

Hello! I have competed in speech and debate from 2021 to 2025 at Jefferson City High School. I competed in many events, but my most dominant ones were: US Extemp, Radio Speaking, Informative Speaking, HI, Policy Debate, Public Forum Debate, and Congressional Debate. Because I have this experience, I have developed the following paradigms:

Policy Debate:

I was the first speaker for my specific team, therefore I value speaking ability a lot more than anything else in this debate. If you start spreading my ballet is already sealed against you, I feel that spreading is unethical and disrespectful to not only your opponents but me the judge as well. If you start to attack your opponents personally (without a valid reason) the ballet will be sealed against you, debate is a formal event, not a party where you can make fun of people (unless it's Donald Trump). I will value and weigh any and all arguments you make, whether it's a CP, K, disadvantage, etc. I will make sure that I look at any and all evidence provided by both sides, if your citation is missing basic essentials (Qualifications, dates, URLs, etc) the ballet will be sealed against you. If you do not roadmap before speeches, your speaker rank will be tanked. Other than that, be passionate and have fun! I will be paying close attention.

Public Forum Debate:

This debate is one of the hardest debates we can have, this does not mean you can start spreading or being disrespectful. I will value any and all arguments, but BOTH teams must prove solvency in some way, or there's no point voting for them (if you're on neg and you just spurt off that the aff doesn't solve but you don't either, I will not weigh that argument). You can have a max of 3 contentions, or I will just stop listening (unless it is a benefits outweigh the harms resolution). Speaking is the most important part of this debate, as its meant to appeal to the general public, therefore speaking ability will be the most weighed factor in my decision. Other than that, I know the NSDA rules for this debate like the back of my hand, therefore if you break them you better hope I don't know the rule. Please have fun and enjoy the debate!

LD Debate:

This debate is the fastest one you can have. Framework is the most important part of this debate so if you drop it and don't prove you work with their framework (Or if you don't have framework at all) you WILL lose. Don't spread like always, don't be disrespectful, and PLEASE be kind to one another, this is the most friendly of all debates and I want to keep it that way. Make sure to roadmap before your speeches and have fun. PS: don't forget to explain the resolution to me as I won't know it!

Congressional Debate:

Speaking is the most important part of this IE/debate. The best speaker will get the 1. Do not forget to speak somewhere, just because you don't give a speech does not mean you cant do well, cross ex is just as important and you can do very well with it! I will pay close attention to everything that goes on, and I have a general understanding of the event so don't pull a fast one. Also, I will cut you off if you motion to break the cycle, that is NOT allowed and it wont be upheld. PS: Weird or extremely funny quotes will raise your speaker rank, make me laugh!

Lastly for everyone in debate, if you are on your phone for any reason but timing, I will vote against your team. STAY OFF YOUR PHONE! Alongside that, I don't value impacts that much, you must have them but impact weighing wont work, focus on winning the arguments at hand, remember: 1 dropped argument is worth more than 2 fought arguments.

Speaking Individual Events:

I know the structure of them, if you break it I will know and you will have a bad rank because of that factor. I know a lot about speaking events, but I am pretty laid back for them. Just stick to the main structure and be appealing!

Interp Individual Events:

This doesn't have many rules, just be entertaining. Please have blocking, if you don't you will NOT get the 1.

Radio Speaking:

You will have a max of 5:00, go above that and you will not get the 1. I don't value international news so if you can just add another local or national news story, get rid of the stupid international. Structure is super important and if you don't follow it you will not get the 1. Remember structure is: Intro, weather, sports, Local news, National news, International news (if wanted), and conclusion. Lastly, if you're using an incredibly overused station name, you will have a negative comment on your ballet relating to that, be original, please.

I am always here for clarification or tutoring help if needed.

Kent Ernst

Email: Ernstpuffdebater@gmail.com

Phone number: (573)-230-8151

Ariel Fader Hire None

Grant Goering Hire

Last changed on Thu July 11, 2024 at 11:06 AM CDT

Hello!

I'm Grant and I've debated quite a bit for Norman North

Email Chain - gjgoering@gmail.com

TLDR: I'm fairly tech. I'll try not to intervene if possible. I'll vote for pretty much anything with a good warrant, but I need to believe your argument could really happen, so explain it to me! Other than that I will do my best to adapt to you and how you like to debate.

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

HOW I JUDGE:

- Debate is an educational game, make strategic decisions but ground yourself in truth

- Tech > Truth, That isn't an excuse to under-warrant args: I need to understand what I'm voting for

- I default util unless I'm told otherwise

- I presume for the team that lost the flip, if I can't know that then I default first speaking team

- I like cross but won't evaluate anything unless it's in a speech (feel free to skip grand if both sides agree, 1 min prep), cross is binding

- I default 28.5 speaks

- I disclose after the round, if you want to respectfully tell me why you think I was wrong in my decision I would love to hear it! I want to be the best judge I can be

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

PREFERENCES:

Speed:

- I can handle ~260-280 WPM

- If you get over 230 WPM I would like a speech doc

- I'll give you 2 clears if I can't understand but after that anything I miss is on you

- You should get slower as the round progresses, if you are still going well over 200 wpm by summary you need a stronger collapse, of course there are exceptions for super high content rounds, but the more arguments in the back half the lower the chance that I understand the round the same way you do

Evidence:

- I don't care if you paraphrase or read off cut cards

- All evidence must have a cut card producible within 2min, after that period I will assume it doesn't exist and you will lose at least .5 speaks, if it is a repeat issue I'll be very open to a evidence ethics IVI

- If you misparaphrase to the point where the meaning of the evidence changes I will: stop the round, drop you, and set your speaks to the lowest allowed by the tournament whether that is 25, 20, or 0

- Same goes for any brackets you add to cards if they change the meaning then I will drop you

- That being said I read cut card and I know sometimes you need to bracket words to make it read correctly

- You should tell me about all questionable evidence (I WILL REVIEW IT IF TOLD TO)

Prep Time:

- Don't steal prep or your speaks go down (I will call you out on it)

- Flex prep is fine

- I don't care when you take prep

Speeches:

- 2nd Rebuttal needs to frontline

- Summary and FF should be mirrors: if I don't hear it in Summary I won't vote on it

- Only thing that should ever be new in 1st Final is responses to 2nd Summary's implications and weighing

- FF should be all about telling me how / what you have won, I want a story

-The threshold for a response to weighing gets lower the later you introduce it, if I get some totally new pre-req weighing in 2nd Summary any decent response in 1st Final will knock it off my flow

Progressive Debate:

My Prefs:

1 (Preferable) - 5 (I am not your judge)

- Topical Debate 1

- Theory 3

- Ks 4 (I don't know any of the lit, so it will be hard for me to evaluate but I will try if you feel you absolutely have to read it)

- Tricks/Friv Theory 5 (Get verbal confirmation with the other team or TKO)

- Non-T Ks 5

- If you are reading a framing argument (developing world, prioritize women, extinction good, etc) I would really prefer you read it in constructive or at the latest rebuttal. Every time I've seen framing introduced in 1st Summary the round falls apart on both sides so just read it in your case if you are going to read it

- My understanding of an RVI is that if Team A is reading a shell and winning No RVIs Team B can still gain offense by turning the shell. To clarify, an RVI only means that a team doesn’t lose if they have no offense on a shell they presented, if you want me to evaluate the round differently you need to explain why in round

- I personally think disclosure is bad for small schools and that big schools should be disclosing, however I’m not going to intervene for either side. Debate how you want, and exemplify the norms you think are good but if there is ANY performative contradiction for any shell you've read at the tournament and its gets pointed out in the round its a TKO

- Friv Theory is bad, don't read it (Formal cloths, Macbooks, etc.) The only exception is if both teams give verbal confirmation to me that they would like to have a Friv theory round in which case I'd be happy to judge

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

Reach Out If You Have Any Questions!

Miles Gu Outreach Debate

Kelly Helton Outreach Debate

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 6:06 PM EDT

Hi!

My name is Kelly, I use she/they pronouns.

My main event was LD, but I've competed in many different speech and debate events. I coached LD while I was in high school and now.

Across the board, no matter what type of debate you do, I expect you to be respectful to your fellow competitors, audience, and judge(s). Even if you make the best arguments, if you are disrespectful, it is unlikely that I will vote for you or I will deduct speaker points. A good and fair debate can still happen while maintaining respect.

Be aware of your time. You should be keeping track of your own time during speeches. I will also be timing for official purposes, however, I should not have to stop you. In order to manage your time better, I would suggest signposting and using your prep time wisely.

I'm fine with spreading, I tend to be a fast talker myself; however, if you are speaking so fast that I cannot understand you then I won't be able to judge the round...So keep that in mind. It is better to say less and speak slower than to say more and speak so fast that nobody can understand you.

While I do try to do my research about the topics so I have a general understanding before judging, I am definitely not doing the level of research that I used to when I was a competitor. It would be a good idea to avoid jargon or complex ideas unless you are going to explain them. Generally, most of your judges won't know much about the topics you're speaking on. It is easier to convince the judge if you are speaking in terms and explaining to them in ways that they can understand. You are trying to convince your judge and if your judge doesn't understand what you're talking about then they're probably not going to vote in your favor.

LD specifics:

The more evidence you have the better! Although, LD is a philosophical debate in some senses, facts, and evidence can and WILL bolster your arguments (make sure you are using credible sources though).

Don't forget about your value and value criterion! This is the part of LD that makes LD unique. It should not just be stated at the beginning of your case and then never mentioned again. All of your contentions and arguments should link back to your value and value criterion. Framework debate is a good spot to have those more philosophical debates. Ultimately, your whole case is built on your framework, so if your framework is flawed, your opponent can make a good case against you.

I love a good cx. This is the one point in the debate where you get to interact with your opponent so use it to your advantage! I want to see good leading questions. By CX I can usually tell who my ballot is going to.

Ultimately just have fun! I'm excited to see what you all can do!

Fiona Hu Outreach Debate

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

Hi! I'm Fiona!

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

Tldr: run any argument you want

General

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

Tech > Truth

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

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH.

Second rebuttal must frontline. Defense is NOT sticky.

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

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

If you paraphrase, please provide cut cards.

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

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

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

I'll disclose if the tournament allows it.

Specific Arguments

Policy

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

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

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

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

Progressive Debate

I'm a better judge for K than theory.

I can evaluate both non-topical and topical Ks.

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

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

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

Theory

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, DTD.

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

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

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

Tricks

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

Joseph Hurtado Outreach Debate None

Maya Hutchins Outreach Debate

Last changed on Fri June 28, 2024 at 2:52 PM EDT

—James Madison HH—

—JMHS '24; VT '28—

Hi! My name is Maya and I’m a graduated varsity debater from James Madison High School. I started debate (PF) my Junior year of high school and competed on the national & local circuit for 2 years. Currently, I am freshman at Virginia Tech studying applied economics concentrated in life sciences. My record from HS is linked above, but for some highlights, I was the 2024 PF Debate Virginia State Champion, I was a 2024 competitor at NSDA Nationals, and I competed at a lot of NatCirc tournaments (with a few local ones mixed in there). With that in mind, I feel I can evaluate any style because at this point I've pretty much seen it all. I’m not too picky with judging, but you can find my prefs below. I do have some judging experience (most of it doesn't show up on my judging record for whatever reason) and have learned that I tend to prefer tech over truth. Have clear warrants and understand your own argument. I never want to hear someone ask you a question and your only response is "well my evidence says that it's going to happen", but you don't actually know why it's going to happen. That just tells me that you don't know the topic and will make it difficult to vote for you. I really love unique arguments, they are a great way to change what the judge is hearing all day and also surprise opponents, so please don't hold back! I will disclose my decision and give ample oral feedback unless I am forbidden to do so.

My absolute biggest pet peeve in PF is progressive debate & wiki disclosure. I think they are becoming extremely harmful norms, and as someone who lost in semi-finals to frivolous theory and at Nationals to a K, I will not condemn anyone to the same fate. Any progressive arguments will not be on my flow and speaks could also be affected if you attempt them. If you do choose to run it, at least have some substance so I have something to evaluate on your side. Same goes for disclosure, sending speech docs or posting them on the wiki is just harmful for everyone. Come into the debate prepared instead of relying on someone disclosing their case, this should never be an expectation as you enter a round.

TLDR: I will evaluate any argument as long as it's not progressive.

—Novice & JV—

I won’t be too picky with teams at this level, I just have a few hard prefs. No spreading, I will not read a speech doc, say it or it's not going to be on my flow. Finally, make sure you are signposting, you are a lot more likely to have your arguments evaluated properly if it is extended cleanly across my flow. Feel free to ask questions if I’m allowed to disclose my decision.

—Varsity/ Nat Circ—

Feel free to run what you believe in. Other prefs: No spreading, I will not read a speech doc, say it clearly or it's not going to be on my flow. Please signpost and don’t give me a roadmap. Nothing should be new in the second half of the debate, but I will accept new evidence in summary, just no new arguments (second rebuttal must frontline). Treat me like a flay and explain your warranting and link-chains to me. Extending author names is fine as long as you give me a quick reminder of what that author said, it really doesn’t need to be much. Use cross for gotchas and actual substance, not clarifying questions. I do not flow cross, so if something happens that you want evaluated please be sure to bring it up in a speech. Finally, be respectful. Attitude is one thing, but being straight up rude is another. I don’t really care about attitude, it can be pretty funny sometimes (feel free to be creative, funny, & witty in speeches), but be kind to your opponents or your speaks will take a hit. Also, feel free to post round or ask me questions after I disclose my decision. Obviously, my decision will not change, but it helps me learn to be better and it helps you take out some frustrations and understand why I made the decision that I made. Finally, do not lie about evidence, do not misrepresent it, and avoid making assertions without it.

—Speaks—

(Adapted by level)

18-24: You were unethical or extremely disrespectful

25-26: Average

26-27: Good

27-28: Great

29-29.9: Excellent

30: Perfect

Making the round fun will always score extra points with me :)

—Conclusion—

Try your best, and good luck! I can't wait to judge your round!

Maya Hutchins Outreach Debate

Last changed on Fri June 28, 2024 at 2:52 PM EDT

—James Madison HH—

—JMHS '24; VT '28—

TLDR: I will evaluate any argument as long as it's not progressive.

—Novice & JV—

—Varsity/ Nat Circ—

—Speaks—

(Adapted by level)

18-24: You were unethical or extremely disrespectful

25-26: Average

26-27: Good

27-28: Great

29-29.9: Excellent

30: Perfect

Making the round fun will always score extra points with me :)

—Conclusion—

Try your best, and good luck! I can't wait to judge your round!

Neil Jin Outreach Debate

Shaun Jones Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sun July 21, 2024 at 6:07 AM EDT

Basis Independent McLean '24, UC Irvine '28 |PF| shaunjones247@gmail.com (he/him)

About Me: Debated for 3 years locally as Basis Independent McLean Z[J] and 1 year nationally as Basis Independent McLean [J]R. I was ok at both. Now I go to UC Irvine where I'm double majoring in Political Science and Mechanical Engineering.

Quick excerpt about the local VA circuit from my good friend (and the guy who ended my debate career) Connor Chun:

"I dislike much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes?? Is it really impossible to find any judge who at least has some idea of what debate is??? It should be pretty obvious which circuit I prefer..."

**-----NOTE FOR NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT-----**

Epsilon/ThetaCANNOT initiate theory on Lamba/Kappa kids. Otherwise everything else still applies.

TLDR:Typical Tech > Truth judge. Good with speed, please send doc. Not great with progressive argumentation (I ran theory twice in my career) so please slow down and warrant in the backhalf. Anything bigoted gets a calm L20 and a report to tab. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad. Debate is a game, yall should be enjoying yourselves and having fun. Please just refer to me as Shaun, not judge. Please tell me if there is anything I can do to accommodate you in your round!

Not a fan of the oldheads who proclaim "PF is not policy-lite!!!" and "Put the Public back in Public Forum!!!" . To say that an entire event is getting ruined because people are innovating away from your personal debate style of the mid to late 20th century is... incredibly self-centered... to say the least.

Prefs Sheet:

1 - Substance

2 - Theory / Topical K's

3 - Non - T K's

4 - Tricks (I find them abusive but theyre kinda funny)

Strike - Phil, High Theory (Its not that i dont like them, its that I have no idea how to properly evaluate them)

Stuff specific to the local Virginia Circuit (WACFL): Disclosure isn't a norm, I won't vote off of it. I would be inclined to drop you if you read disclosure against teams that you know don't have an opencaselist. Substance only unless both teams agree to do a prog round. I'm also not allowed to disclose rfd after round - you'll have to wait in anxiety.Please set up an email chain though; WACFL rounds run super late because it takes years for teams to call for individual cards, so setting up an email chain before round will make things much smoother.

Content Warnings:

Please provide content warnings if you are about to discuss sensitive topics (sexual violence, self-harm) in the form of an anonymous opt out form. If you don't do this and read distressing content I will drop your speaks to the lowest.

Prep Time:

pls track your own prep time, i'm too lazy. i trust u wont lie to me. Flex prep is fine.

Evidence:

Warranted Analytics > Unwarranted Cards

Add me on the email chain. If youre going fast send a carded doc so I can follow along and so that we don't waste time calling for evidence. If you don't send a carded doc before the speech please at least send one afterwards - be wary that I'm gonna let the other team steal prep in this case. I have an extremely low bar when it comes to responses that indict evidence from Medium. If your case has evidence from Medium it better a) be from a real human being and b) have sufficient warranting for what you're reading in case.

I don't really care about clipping unless its super egregious e.g. a team deliberately highlights a part of the card that has a major implication/impact, doesnt read it, doesnt mark the doc, then collapses on that arg using that highlighted part in the extension. Other than that, I'm not gonna drop a team because they forgot to rehighlight cards after cutting down case.

I'm probably not a great judge for evidence challenges. To win one you would have to prove that a) a team deliberately cut a card to completely misrepresent what its saying and/or b) fabricated evidence. Doing either of these things is quite difficult, so you're better off just pointing out their horrible evidence ethics and it casts alot of doubt on them on my end.

Speeches:

Please signpost. I'm good with speed and I'll clear you if needed. I stop flowing 5 seconds over time.

Cross:
Nothing said in cross goes on my flow unless it's brought forward into subsequent speeches. Be assertive, but not overly aggressive. A good cross will benefit your speaks, even if you lose the round overall. If everyone is in agreement we can skip grand for 1 min of extra prep. Open cross is fine if that's your preference, just make sure to ask the other team first.

2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've basically lost the round and the other team can call a TKO after 1st summary if they play their cards right. Generated offense in 2nd rebuttal has to be in the form of turns and not just new DA's. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it shouldve been in constructive.

Summary:

No new evidence. (Unless its to frontline your own case in first summary)

Defense isn't sticky. Please extend defense in every speech; you can't forget to extend a piece of defense in summary and do a ritual in final focus to summon it again. I won't flow it. I should be able to draw a line from the 2AC to the 2AR.

Extensions don't have to be perfect. As long as you extend uniqueness, link chain, and impact, ur good. If I don't hear an extension ur doomed lowkey. U should also collapse in summary, its a good idea. This also applies to turns: you have to extend UQ, the Link turn itself, and an impact or else I can only eval it as defense.

A note about turns:

Don't extend UQ? I would be hesitant to vote on it. Why? Reading your own UQ and extending a turn means that all I have to do is vote on a risk of your impact happening. Don't extend the turn itself? Self-explanatory. Don't extend an impact? I can't evaluate it as offense absent some implications that affect diff areas of case. I'm ok with impact turns like dedev, spark and wipeout but im not ok with death good.

Weighing is very very very important. I like seeing direct comparisons between impact scenarios and links. This means that the weighing has to be comparative. Weighing is not "we cause a nuclear war" and nothing else. I want to hear "We outweigh on timeframe because our impact triggers instantly while theirs takes x years" - that's a direct comparison. If teams present different weighing mechanisms, please meta-weigh. If neither side meta-weighs I default to timeframe + magnitude.

My personal thoughts on probability weighing: The only probability weighing that I will buy is off an implication of a non-unique, saying that the link did trigger at some point but the impact never happened. If the other team can't frontline this properly and you do probability weighing, I'd buy it as long as its actually comparative to your case. The probability weighing that I would never buy is the blippy, unwarranted, new in 1st final weighing that just says "nuclear war has never actually happened before yap yap yap we outweigh" - thats just new defense you never read in rebuttal. Debate is a simulation - even if the argument is space col, if its conceded it has 100% probability and if weighed properly I will vote on it.

Final Focus:

Final should mirror summary. If the 2AR makes new responses not present in the 1AR then the 2NR can make frontlines that wouldve been in the 1NR had they never went new in first final. I'd also be inclined to give them a 5 second grace period bc they have to frontline something new. I will try to protect 1st Final Focus - meaning that I will be heavily scrutinizing 2nd final to make sure everything said there was actually in summary.

Framing

I like a good framing debate. I won't accept "Other team has to respond in their constructive" or "Other teams can't read link ins to the framing" absent warranting as underviews or general responses. Youre just avoiding clash at that point. Grow up. Nuclear war doesn't link into SV framing from a technical or truth perspective. This won't factor into my decision because that would be intervening but I will a) have a very low bar for responses against it and b) would not like voting off of it. I also don't buy prefiat weighing off of a discourse argument - I really don't get how you deserve a ballot for simply talking about an issue regardless of the postfiat outcome.

Theory:

I'll evaluate disclo, trigger warning and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions tho. If theres no offense from either side I err to those positions. Don't run theory on people who are obviously novices ('obviously' means their record is on the entries page and its all PF-Novice division). If you're in varsity anything is fair game. I don't care if you don't know how to respond to theory, "theory is dumb" and "we dont know how to respond" are not responses at all.

I default to reasonability because i can't just make up an interp if im not competing in the round so PLEASE if you're arguing against disclo/paraphrase/trigger warning you HAVE to give me a counter interp or else i err against you. Personally, I err against friv theory so if you want me to vote on a friv shell just read a CI. Just read a counter interp, it greatly increases your chances of winning.

I (might) pursue law in the future, so spirit of the interp is not something I'm gonna buy. What the interp says is whats being debated, you can't change that. Make sure your interps are as specific as possible so noone can exploit them.

If you are from a large school (>5 unique entries on your school's disclo page) and read small schools in response to the shell I'm tanking your speaks even if you win the argument. (My school has had 1 national circuit team ever and we still disclosed every single round we did that year - even locals). Just disclose, its not that hard.

IVI's are weird but if you read one and win it ill eval it.

K's:

I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. Never ran them when I competed so please warrant things out for me to understand. I will vote for things I'm ideologically opposed to (like cap good) if the warranting is sufficient. Just win the flow. Don't run Afropess if you're not black, don't run Fem Rage if you're not female - identifying. Doing either of those is kinda weird.

Presumption:

I generally presume aff, if the neg cant prove why doing the aff is bad then I see no reason why we shouldnt at least try doing the aff.

Speaks:

I generally give high speaks (28 - 29.5 range), but it's not too hard to get a 30 from me. Just have a good strategy (like going for turns, innovative weighing I like) and you'll be guaranteed high speaks. If you go all in on a turn and it works in your favor you're guaranteed a 29.5 at minimum.

Postrounding:

You can, and should, postround me. Postrounding helps me as a judge improve in the future, and gives you, the competitor, a better understanding of how I voted and how to handle similar situations in the future rounds.

Fun Stuff:

If both teams agree, we can do a lay round and everyone gets 30s. Will vote off of vibes.

Any reference to the English football club Tottenham Hotspur that makes me laugh will be +0.25 speaks (COYS!)

If you truly believe that a team has no possible path to the ballot after a summary speech, you can call a TKO. If you're right, everyone in the round gets 30s. If you're wrong, its an L25 for you.

Good luck, have fun, and do your best!

Calvin Kaplan Outreach Debate

Kyoungtae kim La Cueva Independent

Aidan Krishnaney Outreach Debate

Last changed on Mon January 22, 2024 at 4:55 AM EDT

Hi I’m Aidan (he/him)!

Currently I’m a junior at University School in Ohio - I’ve competed in PF the national circuit for the last three years.

Add me to the email chain please :) - akrishnaney25@us.edu

Quick Stuff:

Tech>Truth
Will evaluate p much whatever that’s not offensive
Read content warnings w/opt out forms
Go as fast as you want but plz send speech docs, preferably in pdf, google doc, or word doc form
If you’re at a varsity tournament, you should be able to deal w tech/prog debate
Plz do clear layering in prog rounds

Substance

I’m a stickler for extensions - plz extend ur args well in summary and final. If ur opps call out a bad extension or there just isn’t one I won’t vote for the arg.
Plz weigh :)

T Ks

I run a fair amount of Ks I guess
I really like Ks, but I’m not familiar w a lot of lit besides some queer theory
If I cannot understand the K at the end of the round I won’t vote for it, so plz be able to explain it well
I’ve run these before so I generally understand how they work
I do think its a little weird to just have your alt be a full-on CP, but Idc unless there’s some kind of theory arg made against it
If your alternative is rejection I will be sad
In my career so far I've read imperialism, reproductive futurism, cybernetics, object-oriented ontology, and surveillance capitalism

Non-T Ks

I’ve never run one but I’m pretty sure I can evaluate
To vote for you I need to know what voting for you does to the debate space

Theory

I DESPISE THEORY DEBATES, so plz don’t make me want to cry unless there’s an important violation in the round
I kinda suck at evaluating theory anyway so… run at ur own risk?
That being said, if you do run friv I won’t drop you, but the threshold for responses is super low and I’ll probs give you low speaks
Disclosure is probably good and paraphrasing is probably bad, but I won't hack for theory - although I would definitely be open to a disclo/para theory round
I refuse to vote on silly misdisclo shells i.e. if someone accidentally puts a corrupted file for one round
I am very open to defaulting to reasonability, esp if the debate gets super complicated
Complex theory debates hurt my brain

Tricks

These args are funny, I guess I’ll evaluate them (probably not super well though tbh)
Threshold for responses is super low
I ran them like one time

If you want a reference, I largely agree and strive to judge like Katheryne Dwyer

Sachin Letchumanan Outreach Debate

Last changed on Tue July 9, 2024 at 6:54 PM EDT

[Updated for 5th FDM]

Hi! My name is Sachin Letchumanan, and I will be a senior at Basis Independent Mclean this coming academic year (2024 - 2025). I have debated in public forum for the past three years, and qualified for NCFL last year.

Here is my email for evidence exchange -- Sachin.letchumanan@gmail.com

A few general notes:

Add me to the email chain if you choose to make one.
Tech > Truth
You can only rely on me to evaluate substance and theory well -- anything else I am uncomfortable with, so it is probably safest not to run any Ks or Trixes or whatnot. In theory -- the less frivolous, the better.
Make sure to signpost clearly -- this is especially important if you are spreading.
Do not forget to weigh! -- If the weighing is really bad, it is significantly more challenging for me to evaluate the round. I feel debaters think weighing is a small part of the debate. On the contrary -- It is one of the most critical parts. So Weigh!
In Summary, all Turns must be fully extended if you want me to vote on them—think of them as their contention. (I am also happy to vote on a turn if it is extended and runs well.) Even if the turn is conceded out of the second rebuttal or first summary, it must be fully extended in the next speech.
I am ok with spreading, but if you are going to spread you must send a doc.
For prep -- I do running prep. Do not ask me "can I take one minute of prep." Just say "we will run prep starting now" and I will time (much easier for me)
I do not flow CX. If you want me to pay attention to anything said in CX, it must be mentioned in a speech. In general, I will not be paying too much attention in cross unless something gets extremely heated.
Defense is not sticky and must be extended in every speech. It can not skip speeches. If it is not extended in summary, it's gone from the round—do not bring it up.
Make sure to extend the case in summary. Extend the whole chain --If you do not extend the case, your chances of winning take a huge hit.
For FF, be careful you are not making new responses -- those won't count or be flowed.
Finally, have respect for your opponents. I will not tolerate excessively rude behavior or anything outright mean. If this happens, I might drop you on the spot.
Try to err on the side of caution and not aggression in CX. Anger does not bolster your argument at the moment.
I will disclose my decision if the tournament allows me to.
If offense on both sides of the debate is very, very weak at the end of the discussion, I will presume neg unless warranted otherwise. I believe Aff has a higher burden of persuasion because they want me to change the SQUO.
Ask me a fun question before round so I know you read my paradigm :)

If you have any questions, I would love to answer them -- j email me here at sachin.letchumanan@gmail.com

David Li Outreach Debate

John-Austin Little Outreach Debate

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:47 PM CDT

As a judge, my priority is to evaluate the debaters in front of me as fairly as possible, regardless of personal beliefs. I have experience with LD, PF, and Congress. You may choose Trad or Tech just be reasonable and if you plan on speaking over 250wpm+, you should send a speech doc to ensure all points are evaluated.

I have three absolute rules for round:

1. Do not be condescending /disrespectful to your opponent(s) unless you feel like losing speaks and possibly the round. Passion and energy are great, disrespect is not.

2. Do not misrepresent/power-tag your evidence. You will lose the point and possibly the round, depending on the severity. This includes misusing, statistics.

3. Do not mischaracterize your opponents arguments or actions in round. Ex: insisting they dropped arguments they clearly addressed. You are welcome to tell me when you believe an argument should flow to you, although I may not agree.

I have no bias regarding theory, K's, ect. that don't break tournament rules. However, you should approach the round as if I know nothing about the argument you are running. That being said, if it doesn't make sense, I will not vote on it, you must prove your argument should win you the round. Ex: Saying your opponents shoes are a voter does not make it so.

Some specific information:

On weighing: I do not automatically way in "layers" or give preference to any specific type of argument, you need to prove that your approach takes priority.

Kritiks: Generally acceptable.

Non-T K's: If you are reading a K that is not topical It needs to be excessively relevant to the round. By that I mean that you telling me that I should vote for you because debate is sexist, will not sway me. However, If your opponent called you a sexist term or used sexist language to undermine you, I will absolutely evaluate a Kritik that concludes your opponent is bad for the Debate space. A topical statistic that you find offensive, is not reasonable ground for the K, facts and logic are critical to a meaningful debate.

Topical K's: I am fine with topical Kritiks, however you must prove that you earned the vote. I'm unbiased, so I'm perfectly comfortable evaluating anything you would like to run, Cap, Anthro, Fem, Pess varieties (I have a very high threshold for link and impact evidence here), and whatever else you can think of. As long as I believe you proved it, and you defend it, it is acceptable.

Note: A large volume of illogical evidence will not outweigh well-reasoned logic.

Theory:

Friv: Do not waste my time with shoe theory, formal dress theory, apple-laptop theory, or any other variation, unless both teams decide they just want to have some fun.

General Theory: For theory to carry a round it needs to outweigh the original purpose of debate. If there is a legitimate offence and you are enriching the round or the debate space by reading the shell, go for it, even if I don't love it, I'm willing to vote on it. You will need to do a lot of work to prove that the offense was egregious enough to warrant me dropping substance on the ballot.

CI: Counter-interps always get offense unless the team reading the shell proves that their opponents were theory-baiting, or does significant work to prove that they should get a 0-risk timesuck for whatever reason they choose. If you are willing to win on the shell, you should be ready to lose on it.

Reasonability: If you prove the offence had no effect on the round, and that you have a bright-line to fairness, I will drop the shell.

Plans: Plans are fine if the rules allow them.

Tricks: I think these de-value debate.

Performances: I have no experience with these, but if you prove its a reason to vote, I'll vote on it.

Alice Luo Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:57 AM EDT

Hello. I am Llice Auo (pronounced y-ee-che Ahh-ooo-oh). Sorry I typoed on the tab room. My dawg is good debater. He does spar but also sometimes Congress which is bad because I do not like the Senate. I have been judging Big Questions and world schools debate for thirty years.

The thought of a chain of emails disturbs me. And if you dare to add me (aliceluonh@gmail.com) to the chain of emails I will give you 10 speaks as I give speaks from one to ten with one being the best.

I am tech over truth because I like technology as I work as a content moderator at the facebook. I do not like the truth. If you dare to tell me the truth I will give you 11 speaks.

Speak as fast as you want as long as you go slow. If you go really slow, please send a doc.

Make sure to extend frontlines in first rebuttal or I will give you 12 speaks. Also extend your opponents' case in first constructive or I will have to give you 13 speaks.

I prefer unwarranted arguments because I do not want to get arrested. However if you read warrants please bring evidence and a lawyer.

Please do not weigh as I do not want to know how heavy I am. If you weigh I will give you 14 speaks.

I don't like the theories, especially conspiracy theories like the theory of evolution. However sometimes I will tolerate only the most serious theories like shoe theory.

I do not like the RVIs because if you look too close it look like DUI. I cannot get another one.

I prefer competition interpretations over reasonability because I am unreasonable.

Please do not read critiques, especially of my hair. However I am ok with the cap critiques and the Yoda critique. If you read the Yoda critique I will give you auto win and 1 speak.

I do not want you to read the framework because my picture frames work. If you do I will give you the 16 speaks.

I am ok with the Trix, but only if you tell me when to pour the milk. You must also bring enough to share with everyone.

I do not support section 230 so I will vote con.

In conclusion my dawg is a better debater than you. Please win.

Thank you.

Taryn Murphy Outreach Debate

Nikita Pande Outreach Debate

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 11:18 AM EDT

Hi! I'm a junior at Horace Mann School. I have been on my school’s PF debate team since 8th grade. Please include me on the email chain and send speech docs if you're going to spread (nikita_pande@horacemann.org). BRING ME FOOD FOR AUTO 30 SPEAKS!!!!!! Below are my judging preferences:

Tech > truth nine times out of ten. I will always vote off the flow.
Be organized during speeches, please please please signpost so I can follow you on the flow.
Nothing is sticky! If there's something you want me to evauluate, it must be extended in every speech. Also, don't just extend contention/response taglines—remember to extend the actual warranting as well.
Turns should be extended in the same way a contention is: uniqueness, warranting, impact, and weighing.
Weighing is the key to winning my ballot. My favorite mechanisms are prerequsite and short circuit. Use specific numbers when doing scope or magnitude weighing.
Do not bring up any new responses starting second summary. It is abusive to your opponents who do not have adequate time to respond in first final focus.
I will be timing all of your speeches and prep time. I will allow max 10 seconds overtime to finish your thought. Anything mentioned after going over that time limit will not be written down on my flow.
If you and your opponents have conflicting evidence, explain to me why I should prefer your evidence over theirs (date of publication, author credibility, etc.) If there’s still an evidence clash, tell me why I should prefer you on the warrant level.
If you make me laugh, I will raise your speaker points. Debate should be fun and should not be taken so seriously!
Crossfire is my favorite part of the round because it fosters a low-stakes, quick exchange of ideas that is truly in the spirit of debate. Thus, I believe crossfire should not be flowed. If you would like a point made in crossfire to be recorded on my flow, mention it in a following speech.
Your evidence should be in cut card format, not just a link.
If you are able to, you should stand up during in-person debate while speaking and during first/second crossfire.
Although not opposed to it, keep in mind that I have minor experience with theory and progressive debate. You can definitely run it, but don't expect me to know exactly how to evauluate it unless you explain it in speech.
I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points if you're being rude, condescending or belligerent. Remember: attack the contentions, not the opponent.

^ I am happy to answer any questions!

Maria Pelaez Outreach Debate

Gavin Poore Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sat June 22, 2024 at 1:11 PM EDT

Pembroke Pines Charter ‘24 | Emory '28

TLDR

I debated in PF for 3 years in high school, qualed to Nats, TOC, FFL, etc. i also did some worlds

Tech > Truth, debate is a game - play to win

Speed is fine just send docs. Add me to the chain: pooregavin@gmail.com

im quite a big fan of impact defense and impact turns. make the round fun

Prefs:

LARP/Policy - 1

Theory - 3

Topical K- 3

Non T K - 4

High Theory - 4/5

Trix - S

Longer General Stuff:

I'll vote on basically any arg that has a warrant and isn't inherently exclusionary/problematic.

Pre flow before the round pls

Signposting is amazing

Go for whatever strategy/arg you want, feel free to experiment. I read lots of squirrelly args in high school, so id be happy to hear them.
Collapse pls and thanks
Slow down on analytics

Extend every part of the arg that ur going for (extensions of warrants matter a lot esp for impacts). offense should be explicitly extended in summary and ff, no new things in ff though. Yet, 1st ff can respond to 2nd summary weighing, and 2nd ff can respond to 1st ff weighing. defense isn't sticky
Be a nice person in round

Frontline in second rebuttal

Real clash is appreciated

Pls weigh, the arg that wins the weighing is what ill evaluate first, but plsgive me a reason to prefer your weighing (link-ins and meta weighing are great)

u dont need to extend opponents' link for an impact turn

i presume neg

Prog:

Im alright with prog, but I’m not the most experienced. tbh, i'd rather judge a substance debate.

for theory: i default to competing interps and no rvi's. i wont hack for any shell, but i do think its significantly harder to win certain interps (disclo bad, paraphrasing good, etc). weigh the voters pls

for Ks: pls make sure to explain the lit. I'd recommend treating me like a lay judge with these.

Im probably not the best judge if you want to run a plan

Check out some masterful basketball gameplay from my bestie & partner Aakash Suresh below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLHZ9-I_j6w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px5yDNiihg4

Ashley Rini Outreach Debate

Neel Sahni Outreach Debate

Austin She Outreach Debate

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 9:14 AM EDT

debated for a year on the ms circuit for bergen and two years for ardrey kell on the nat circuit

for non varsity divisions:

none of the stuff under this will make any sense really so in general just try your best

I care much more about argumentation then presentation but if presentation is horrible it will factor into your speaks (not the decision)

give me comparisons of impacts in round please

varsity only below

tldr:

tech judge, speed ok, theory ok, tech > truth

put me on that email chain: sheaustin42@gmail.com

in round:

preflow before round

just tell me where you're starting & signpost, no offtime roadmaps

spend more time explaining wonky args

if u don't send docs with cards i'll cap ur speaks at 27 and you should take no more than 5 minutes to prep a card doc

if you need time to send a marked doc im taking it out of your prep cuz it really should not take that long - stop trying to steal prep

if u spread: send speech docs, however, even w/ a doc u need to be clear for me to flow - i wont flow off the doc and/or double-check my flow with the doc for you

if u plan to go fast (but not spreading) just give me a warning right before u start

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

turns must be implicated and weighed in rebuttal to be voted for

i have a pretty high threshold for what i consider turns - i need uniqueness, impact, and weighing

do not try to blow something up in the next speech when it wasn't implicated in the prior one--i will not evaluate it

i don't believe in probability + clarity of anything weighing

meta weighing makes me happy

so does weighing AGAINST YOUR OPPONENTS IMPACTS; actually talk about their impacts, dont just talk about yours

i default util framing in general & the squo in policy topics

on that note, i will try my very hardest to never default; so, the less offense i see on both sides, the lower my standards for winning an argument will be (this applies exclusively to non varsity divisions)

flex prep is fine

cross:

i will be playing brawl stars in cross so no guarantees i hear everything

cross is binding but reference it in speech

chill w skipping grand for a min of prep

i like open cross

evidence:

warranted ev > uncarded warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev > unwarranted uncarded analysis

only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, for educational purposes, or if i want to use it in my case!

strike me if you don't cut cards

i hate bad evidence ethics which means no brackets

speaks:

based off strategy & speaking

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

i hate nonchalant cx please actually put effort into cross

evidence challenges:

evidence challenges must be called once the card is introduced/called for

i believe ev challenges always incorporate a level of judge intervention so i prefer not adjudicating them but if it really is that egregious of a violation--you shouldn't have to worry about not picking up my ballot

Ks:

i like Ks and most of them are very interesting but also complex please do not blaze through 20 pages of random long words strung together and pretend like anyone can understand it

idk how tricks work i'll try to evaluate them

running prog just because you know your opponents don't know how to respond is pretty trashy

theory:

all shells need to be read in the speech directly following the violation

if you read graphic material, you MUST read a trigger warning + google form opt-out option

on that note: i don’t require tws for non graphic material but that doesn’t mean i don’t evaluate tw theory for such args

i default: disclo good, OS good, para bad, brackets bad, no rvis, CI > R, spirit > text, DTD > DTA

things i wont evaluate:

- any __ist or ___phobic arguments and no i don't care if some old guy says anything different

out of round:

i will always disclose rfd (unless tourney rules prohibit it), just ask

postrounding and being a sore loser are not mutually exclusive, im fine with the former not the latter

if you have any questions prior to the round or after feel free to email me (preferably ask me in the room, im a very lazy typer)

*side note: debate should be fun--run whatever makes you laugh (so long as your opponents are also okay with that type of round)

if you include a VCT reference i'll give you 30 speaks

Chelsea Shen Outreach Debate

Dasha Smirnova Outreach Debate

Last changed on Sun July 14, 2024 at 9:17 AM EDT

If you're a novice, don't worry about understanding this. Just have fun and do your best :)

Freshman @ Columbia, previous PF captain @ Bronx Science.

dmsmirnova1@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

I will be very unhappy if you do not show up to the round at the check-in time and if you do not show up preflowed.

If you don't cut your cards, I'm capping your speaks at 27 (if you're in novice/JV this doesn't apply to you but please have something your opps can command f).

I don't like spreading but if you do send me a doc. Plz collapse and slow down in the back half.

General

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume 1st. I will always disclose after the round unless the tournament does not allow me to.

Tech > truth > obvious BS. I lean more towards the trad side when it comes to substance: the more obviously improbable it is, the less likely I am to buy it. I'm not opposed to improbable scenarios but if you're choosing to do that, make sure you're actually warranting it out.

Metaweighing is great, do it.

I will be timing your speeches/prep, if you go significantly over it will affect your speaks and I will be annoyed.

Framing/Ks

I'm most familiar with SV framing, identity Ks (fem, asian, afropess, queer), cap and sec. I am less familiar with other/higher literature bases so run at your own risk.

Theory

I honestly just think theory rounds are really boring and I don't enjoy them. That being said, I'm fine with theory rounds where the teams are actually debating (disclosure is good vs. disclosure is bad) rather than the CI being "the shell should apply to everyone except me".

If you're competing at a natcir tournament in varsity, you should be comfortable hitting theory/Ks (to quote Roy Tiefer, don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments).

Things I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing (my threshold for good paraphrasing is much higher if you don't disclose)

Thing I don't like: Friv shells, tricks, misrepresenting/mis-cutting/power-tagging ev

Other things

Dont be rude

If you are taking forever to find evidence, your opponents have the right to prep during that time. If it takes a ridiculous amount of time to find one card, it's gonna affect your speaks.

I'm fine with skipping grand if both teams agree -- y'all will get 1 min prep instead.

Don't do any of the -isms. I'll intervene

Saaketh Venigalla Outreach Debate None

Hayden Watkins Outreach Debate None

Benjamin Yarden Outreach Debate

Vivian Zhu Outreach Debate

Last changed on Thu July 11, 2024 at 9:11 AM EDT

For the VBI Camp Tournament:

My preferences below still stand, however, I ask of you to always remain respectful to the teams you are hitting, especially if they are from a lower lab than you. I will accept google docs for the sake of this camp. That being said, I hope you all have fun at the tournament and use this as an opportunity to apply all the skills you have learned. Good luck!

Please add BOTH: vivianz5406@gmail.com AND cc records@victorybriefs.com

TLDR

she/her pronouns

I debated for four years at Ridge on the national circuit and now an incoming freshman at NYU

Flow judge, tech > truth, warranting > blippy, quality > quantity, PLEASE COMPARE

I can handle 250 WPM, but please send docs if you are going to spread

Strike me if you run friv, tricks, phil, performance, etc.

I will drop you/dock speaks if you are discriminatory or _ist

Please read TWs if your case contains sensitive content

Add me to the email chain: vivianz5406@gmail.com

Housekeeping

You must setup the email chain before the round starts in this format: Tournament Name-Rd#-Team Code (side/order) vs. Team Code (side/order)

You must send cut cards and rhetoric if you paraphrase for case before rebuttal in either word/pdf/or directly into the email. I care less if you send rebuttal docs, but I will ask for carded evidence if I need to. I will not accept any google docs. Any evidence that you want evaluated in the round must be a cut card and sent in the email chain. I will not evaluate evidence sent as just a link.

+1 speaks if you bring me food/drinks for in-person rounds

General/PF

I first look to where the weighing debates points me to and look to who links into their offense the best. In order to win my ballot, you must win the best weighed link into the best weighed impact. I do not think you can win rounds by purely winning the weighing debate, you must win the link to your argument/impact in order to access your weighing. Weighing will determine my ballot if both teams do substantial work on the link debate and/or link into the same impact, and I need to use weighing to break the clash.

On weighing specifically, please remember that weighing is comparative. The claim "we outweigh on scope and magnitude because of X number of lives" is not weighing. Weighing needs to be extended, warranted, and implicated correctly. Repeating your impact will not win you anything. Please interact with your opponent's weighing. Most of the time debaters will individually weigh their arguments and not respond to each other's weighing. In that case, it forces me to judge intervene and I don't want to do that. New weighing in first final is fine, but no new prereqs and definitely no new weighing in second final.

Even if your argument/impact is 100% conceded, it is not an auto win for you. Any argument/impact you want evaluated must be extended, warranted, and backed by evidence. I have a very high threshold for extensions and am more than happy to credit an argument less if there is a blippy extension. You should also be collapsing and spending time fleshing out one argument/one turn that is high quality, rather than going for everything with no warranting.

Remember that you primarily win rounds on offense, which includes your case, turns, and disads. You must weigh offense for me to evaluate it. A conceded turn is not an auto win, it must be warranted and implicated.

Defense is not sticky. Do not extend through ink, nor bring something read in rebuttal but not extended in summary back up in final focus. Trust me that I will catch itand am very willing to drop defense that is extended through ink. Again, frontlines and defense that you want considered in the round must be extended and warranted.

Progressive Arguments

I have experience running and responding to theory and kritiks, however, I do not think I am the best at evaluating progressive arguments. If you do read it, I will try my best to evaluate them, but I cannot promise that I will make the correct decisions; run it at your own risk.

If you do read prog, please please please extend in summary and final, frontlining is not enough. I cannot vote for an argument that is not extended.

Some side notes: I will not evaluate friv and if you read disclosure/paraphrasing/or anything wiki-related but you don't meet your own interp, I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

World Schools

I did worlds for two years, semied NSDAs in 2022, and competed with USA Dev in 2023. However, its been a while since I last did/judged worlds, so I am a bit rusty.

There should be clear framing in the one, this means clear definitions and contextualization of what the motion looks like right now and in the world of your side of the house.

Please read counterfactuals/countermodels at your own risk. Only run a model if you need to, don’t run it because you can’t think of another argument on the opp. If you are going to run one, you need to prove why the model is good. Generally, I think that countermodels should be mutually exclusive.

Comparative worlds writes the ballot for me. Worlds heavily relies on good warranting, blippy warranting will not get you far in this event.

The three and the four should not be the same speech. It should mirror each other but should not be the same things. The three should focus on tying up loose ends and doing the comparative. The four should crystalize the round and use ballot directing language to write my ballot for me.

Login to Tabroom

The Genesis Challenge

2023 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges