Last changed on
Mon October 23, 2023 at 1:29 PM EDT
I'm a former PF debater but have also done Parli, Extemp, LD, Congress, and Big Questions, as well as continuing Parli in college. First and foremost, I am an anti-classical liberal (the Economist-reading, free-trade backing, Western civilization-advancing type), and thus, reason and logic come above all else in my mind, meaning you have to make effective appeals to reason to win the round.
I've won a tournament or two, which is meant to advance the idea that I've seen almost everything under the sun. Don't try to be too slick — stuff like calling cards with the express intent of taking the prep and using inefficient email chains are lowkey cringe. Either share all evidence beforehand or do it efficiently.
TL;DR at the bottom. I have specific notes on Parli, PF, and Extemp
Read my paradigm in full. It could help you, or it could not. Who knows.
1. As Judith Butler notes in Diacritics: "The move from a structuralist account in which capitalism understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as atheoretical objects to one in which the insights of the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power," and as Nick Land continues in The Thirst for Annihilation, "Suffering must be futile if it is to be 'educational.' For this reason, our history is so unintelligible, and indeed, nothing that was true has ever made sense. 'Why was so much pain necessary?' we foolishly ask. But it is precisely because history has made no sense that we have learned from it, and the lesson remains a brutal one." In short, I prefer weighing mechanisms that account for the temporally sensitive hegemonic conception of structure.
2. I will not tell you if I am "tech over truth" or vice versa. One is a bourgeois hoax; the other is an oppressive social construct. You guess which is which.
3. As a great debater once said: "Dispense at the door with any delusions that this activity facilitates the pursuit of "truth." Debate is a merciless battleground for ruthless warriors. Wield your words as weapons."
4. Speed – if I can understand you, you are going too slow. If your opponents can't understand you, you're going too fast.
5. Reading evidence written by Spinoza, Mearsheimer, or Sorgner can win you the round.
6. Following the round, don't dare say I "dropped" you, as that implies that I was responsible for your defeat. If I hear you utter anything resembling such a statement, I will go to the tab room and inform them of my "mis-click," dropping both your speaker points by three. Your inability to make a viable, moral argument actively burdens those of demonstrable higher intellect surrounding you. Your failure in debate, the only pure examination of one's intellectual promise, reveals true, fundamental incompetence. /j
7. All weighing can be equally valid. Economics (usually some implicit util) can be weighed against duties or rights-based frameworks and vice versa—just as long as you can explain this clearly.
8. K's, theory, etc. ought not belong in Public Forum debate and should only be used as a last resort. If you poorly present a K or theory case, I will do two things. First, I will drop you, giving your opponents a win. Second, I will moderate a civil conversation about your K or theory so that we can set ourselves on the path toward changing norms or demonstrating how problematic your argumentation was. I am what some would call an intellectual and others a theorycel. Semantics, really. As for Policy/LD,
9. If you make a joke – that makes me laugh – at the expense of England, then I will give you an extra speaker point. If it is at the expense of Ireland, then I will dock you 15 speaker points. Éirinn go Brách.
10. As E.B. White once said: "A despot doesn't fear eloquent writers preaching freedom- he fears a drunken poet who may crack a joke that may take hold." Meme cases are completely acceptable, and I especially encourage it in Parli but know I might drop you if there is no interaction with the resolution. If you're good enough to logically best your opponents in the "marketplace of ideas" with it, then I might as well give you the win.
11. As the great Milton Friedman (apparently) once said – "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Keeping Friedman in mind – I will give you +0.5 speaks if you bring me a drink or a snack. If you actually read to this point and can recollect my Friedman quote, I might give you another + 0.5 speaks — please do this.
12. For the debaters I am judging online, if you can Uber Eats me food before the round ends, you get an automatic win. Send said food to Middle Village, New York City, where I will arrive in approximately 40 minutes to pick it up.
For PF:
Case — Don't stick six contentions in case. Good argumentation trumps a pure deluge of information.
Rebuttal — Signpost. Make it clear what evidence you are responding to and number your responses. Quality over quantity on responses. Signpost as much as possible. The second rebuttal must frontline. The second rebuttal also cannot introduce new arguments as the team speaking first is, therefore, unable to respond.
Summary — Collapse, provide defense, and start weighing. This should not be another rebuttal nor another chance to read case. Make sure to signpost here, too. This speech is make-or-break. Make sure that arguments are extended, are clear, and have been expanded upon. You start weighing here — and that is a must. Also, please collapse. All three contentions will rarely continue standing at the end of the round, and you don't have time for them either.
Final Focus — Give me your voters and weigh, weigh, weigh. Make sure to tell me what your warrants mean and why they are important. I'm a sucker for link-level analysis, but as this is PF, it's alright if you give me more impact calculus and what is or isn't terminal defense. As a note on weighing — tell me what your buzzwords mean, please. Might not be caught up on the new lingo. You also must quantify what things mean in the "grand scheme of things."
Cross — I do not flow cross. It's too much fun.
Prep time — Time yourselves, please. I don't want to call you out constantly. However, for the sake of time, don't use any. At this point, you should have heard every single stock argument 3000 times. /j
Calling for evidence — Please, please, please do not spam calls for cards. Generally, it ends up being abusive. Evidence ethics for me are this: do not lie or blatantly misconstrue. I may excuse paraphrasing depending on the importance of the evidence, particularly in PF or Extemp.
For Parli
Prep time — For cases, I miss the bygone era when you have to ask questions until time starts and the background info is minimal, so I'd love to judge a round like that lol.
PMC — For cases, don't stick six contentions in your case, but remember, it's not tight if you call it snug. For motions, If you tell me your framing is a sentence, I won't count it into time.
LOC — Your off-case should be unique, and make sure the preemptive defense you give me is only implicit. For motions, I'll expect the Opp to provide a counterfactual depending on the resolution. That's just my style, but omfg, please do not give me an On-Off LOC. I will cry
MG/MO — I try my best to avoid leader bias, but also remember that your coverage and added characterization are critical for your partners. For MOs, don't give an off-flow MO just to be different, but remember this speech can win the round.
Rebuttals — Give me your voters, collapse, and weigh, weigh, weigh. Make sure to tell me what your warrants mean and why they are actually important. I'm a sucker for link-level analysis but definitely compare worlds if applicable and tell me why your warrants are strong. I do vote on PMC pull-throughs, but they carry more weight in my adjudication depending on relevance.
New calls — I hate strategic
Signpost — Clearly identify what you are responding to; quality over quantity on responses. Signpost as much as possible. MG/MO/PMR should frontline. The second rebuttal also cannot introduce new arguments as the team speaking first is therefore rendered unable to respond.
Tight Calls — If you want to avoid a tight call round, don't bring a tight case. If you want to avoid a tight call round, maybe come up with a better opp. I'm very experienced with tight call theory and take it very seriously because I rarely find cases tight. For my actual adjudication, it depends on what the Opp tells me to look for. For more, ask me during the round.
TL;DR Final Notes:
On flowing — do not view my embrace of reason as a justification for you to discard the flow. If you are winning the logic, you must also be winning the flow.
Finally – try to have some fun. (Old joke incoming.) I am not Chris Wallace, and you are not Donald Trump and Joe Biden. This should be spirited — so acrimonious (but non-bigoted and respectful, of course) debate over the topic is condoned — but anything off-topic is just annoying. This is all supposed to be in the pursuit of intellectual enlightenment.
