Tabroom.com

TFA State 2024

2024 — Houston, TX/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Cristian Abarca James Bowie High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 12:08 AM CDT

[BowieHS'23] PF, DX, & WSD; [GWU'27]

[Email] cristian.abarca@gwu.edu

Public Forum Debate:

TLDR: Flow judge, good with speed, tech over truth, I want to be on the email chain, not interventional, don't be abusive.

Similar Outlooks: My view on debate is very similar to those of my former teammates Grant Barden and Fionella Caputo. I discuss many of the same perspectives, outlooks, and issues here as they do in their paradigms.

A Couple of Specifics:

Cases. I'm open to pretty much anything here. I might give +1 speaks if you run something creative, or otherwise not stock. After all, debate loses its productivity if competitors have the exact same round again and again. If you're spreading you MUST send a document BEFORE the speech.

Impact Warranting & Terminalization. I would think this is obvious....ALL IMPACTS MUST BE WARRANTED & TERMINALIZED. Too many debaters are failing to do this, particularly with extremely common impacts. (I.e., "Nuke War → Extinction" needs a warrant and terminalized impact [e.g., death], it is not presumed.) Examine opponents' arguments for lack of warranting and terminalization, there's a high chance it's there.

Summary & Final Focus. What's in the final needs to be in the summary, the first gets a little latitude. If you make abusive new arguments or false claims (like your opponents dropping something they didn't) I dock speaks. Also, collapse and weigh.

Framework. Defaults to cost-benefit, but anything's fine. Frameworks must be warranted. Be careful with stuff anyone can tie into, like structural violence, that your opponents will probably just concede, and you've wasted time. I love hyper-specific frameworks built for a particular case. If you want to contest a framework, please do so as soon as possible. (Not mandatory, but it makes the round easier to understand, and thus more likely I'll understand why I need to vote for you.)

Extensions. These must be present but don't need to be especially in-depth. Make sure to include uniqueness, links, and impacts. If you are going for a turn: YOU MUST EXTEND YOUR OPPONENTS' LINK CHAIN. If you don't, I can't vote on the turn. If your opponents don't extend, make sure to bring it up in a speech, it makes it much easier to evaluate as part of the round (DO NOT FALSELY CLAIM THIS).

Frontlining. The second rebuttal must frontline. Defense isn't sticky.

Calling for Evidence. Despite my desire to be included on an email chain, I will only review evidence for abuses if specifically asked to by a particular team. Only read the evidence you have on hand, it shouldn't take forever and a day to retrieve, if it does, I dock speaks quickly. A hyperlink you found on Duck Duck Go mid-round isn't evidence. If you want to find something mid-round to read, you must also properly full-format cut it mid-round too. Also, one of those fancy hyperlinks that highlights the text when you click on it does not count.

Notes on Speech Docs. Two things here: (1) Only include what you will/plan/hope to read on your doc. Don't include evidence or rhetoric you are certain won't be read on the doc. Strategies like "what's red we don't read" just serve to confuse everyone. If you don't understand what I mean here, don't worry about this. (2) Docs should only be sent through irreversible means, they shouldn't be able to be un-sent after a round. The classic example of this is with Google Docs. Not once have I been on a shared Google Doc that wasn't immediately un-shared after the round or had the download or copy features disabled. There are also evidence ethics concerns as teams can insert new evidence into the doc after a speech and falsely claim that it was read as it was "in the speech doc."

Cross. I'm listening to cross, but I'm not flowing it. If a key point is made here, it needs to be brought up in a speech to make it into my flow. I do evaluate cross for speaker points. If you are excessively rude or stage a soliloquy that rivals those of Shakespeare to crowd out your opponents, I dock speaks fast.

Grand. I'm fine skipping grand cross, but doing so means the round goes straight to finals. Skipping grand is not an excuse to award yourselves more prep time to remedy poor choices in prep time allocations earlier in the round.

Paraphrasing. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. While I won't directly dock you anything if you do, let's say if someone paraphrases I would be more than content to hear a theory shell calling it out.

Trigger Warnings. If you are wondering whether an argument needs a trigger warning, it probably does. These should also be anonymous, I'd suggest an anonymous Google form. If you read a harmful argument without a trigger warning, I will be very perceptive to a theory shell on the matter. (For clarification, "wipeout" and "spark" arguments need trigger warnings, you are telling everyone in the round that they should die.)

Weighing. Please do this. There are two types of legitimate weighing: timeframe and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a derivative of these two (i.e. scope, extinction, try-or-die, pre-req) or is illegitimate. Most notably, please steer clear of using "probability" or "strength-of-link" weighing as both are low-key abusive and amount to either: (1) new un-warranted defense claims; or (2) the statement "don't vote for my opponent, I don't know why they're wrong, but they probably are." Less common, but even more ludicrous is "cherry-picked" evidence analysis. DON'T do this. ALL EVIDENCE IN DEBATE IS CHERRY-PICKED at the point a debate case is an agglomeration of evidence that forms a specific narrative. While weighing is important, don't spend too much time here. It doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning the link to it.

A2: Weighing. Except in the occasional situation where it might be advantageous to concede to your opponents' weighing mechanism, you must rebut their weighing. It can be easy to overlook weighing in a busy round, yet it can prove to be fatal. Too many teams end up losing despite superior argumentation because they lost the weighing debate even though they won large portions of their offense.

Timing. It is not the judge's responsibility to time y'all. While I likely will do so for reference, y'all should time yourselves and hold each other accountable for staying on time. The only time it MIGHT be okay to go overtime is if your opponents have already done so.

Speed. I'm good with speed/spreading. When spreading, it is NOT okay to compromise on clarity. If you are not clear, I'll shout "CLEAR" two times before docking speaks. If you're pushing 300 wpm, you MUST send a doc BEFORE the speech. You must also slow down on analytics (presuming they're not on the doc), and you MUST signpost when going off the doc.

Signposting/OTRs. Please signpost and give an off-time roadmap. The only thing worse than not giving one is giving one and not following it.

Presumption. If there's no offense in the round, I'll vote for the status quo (which is usually, but not always, the negative). That is unless a team presents and wins an argument in-round that a presumption ballot must act differently. If you do this, warrants need to be in rebuttal or (first) summary, there can't be a new-in-final presumption argument because you've just now realized you don't have offense.

Post-Rounding. It's fine, ask as many questions as needed for you to properly understand my decision. Feel free to email too.

Theory. Keep theory to check back for abuse. That being said, you are the ultimate arbiter of what you consider abuse. If you're alleging abuse, you need to read the shell immediately after that abuse. Friv theory might have a place in PF, but it is certainly not to steam-roll some novices who don't understand it for a cheap win. It's clear when this is a team's goal. If reading theory, shells don't need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final. I don't expect a word-for-word extension, but its spirit or intention shouldn't fluctuate.

Disclosure Theory Specifically. I'm on the fence on whether disclosure is beneficial, I don't lean to either side, so I'm open to seeing it run. That being said, please keep the following in mind. First, see the note about the new TFA rules below, if applicable. Second, I stand vehemently against the all-too-common 'big-schools, small-schools' standard, particularly when it is run by a big school against a small school. Disclosure might be good. A big school spreading theory against a small school, telling them what's best for them while asking me to down them is ridiculous. Put simply, if you're a big school and run this standard against a small school, I'll down you. I'm more than happy to vote for disclosure, even potentially for big schools against small schools, just use other standards.

Ks. I'm willing to go here. I've used common Ks like Capitalism and Securitization. However, if you're doing something uncommon make sure you explain the literature as I am likely not familiar with it. (Like theory, don't use Ks for a cheap win, they should be part of a productive debate. Once again, if you use this to steam-roll novices......I WILL DOWN YOU.)

Tricks. I am open to these, but I have a very low bar as to what is a sufficient response against them. So, you're welcome to read "nothing's the cause of anything" but I'll consider your opponent calling your argument dumb a sufficient response.

Blippy. Don't be. This is usually a cheap excuse to not provide adequate warranting or terminalization. See above.

TKOs. (Technical Knock-Outs.) TKOs are stupid. Even if a team has eliminated all of their opponent's paths to the ballot early in the round, there is still ample time for that team to make technical errors in later speeches leading to their loss, or for the opponent to introduce independent offense or weighing (if sufficiently early in the round) to remedy the situation. I have seen both of these eventualities occur. As TKOs preclude necessary argumentation, if you go for a TKO, I WILL DOWN YOU.

IVIs. (Poor-Man's Theory.) IVIs are usually stupid, particularly evidence ethics IVIs. Shell format is nearly always superior as unstructured IVIs can be exceedingly vague, tricky to weigh, and hard to nail down in-round.

Ethical Ballots. If your opponents are being discriminatory, I'm more than happy to down your opponents off of it via one of two pathways: (1) A theory shell on the matter. (2) If it's blatantly present, beyond the argumentation a theory shell entails (i.e. racist, sexist, etc.), please bring it up in a speech. However, if it's never mentioned in the round I won't be able to vote off of it.

Economics. I'm pursuing a BS in Economics, and as such I understand economic realities. Please make sure that if you're running an econ argument, like interest rates, that you know what you're talking about and aren't stumbling around in the dark. I'm not adding this disclaimer out of being biased against poorly run econ argumentation, but rather if your econ argumentation makes no sense it's hard to look away from it unless it goes completely conceded.

On the Recent Amendment to the TFA Constitution Regarding Disclosure... as some of you may be aware, the TFA has recently adopted an amendment to the TFA Constitution that reads: "Tournament directors may stipulate that judges at their tournament may not base their decision on [the] disclosure of cases or the lack thereof." Given this, if you intend to run disclosure theory, please first ensure that the tournament, if operating under the TFA, hasn't stipulated that judges are unable to vote on it. If this is the case, regardless of whether you win disclosure on the flow, I will be unable to vote for you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I very rarely competed in LD debate, thus limiting my exposure to the format's standard practices. However, given my participation in rather progressive PF, I should be fine evaluating the majority if not all of LD argumentation. Relevant commentary above on debate in general applies, that being said I won't constrain progressive argumentation in LD the way that I do in PF (as detailed above). Please make sure everything is neatly on the doc, or otherwise clearly signposted in the speech as not being on the doc. Lastly, don't assume I know/am familiar with the literature, particularly on less common subjects. Please don't hesitate to ask any clarifying questions.

World Schools' Debate:

I don't think there is too much to be said here. When it comes to how I will decide on the round, I will decide before assigning points. While style is important, I won't vote purely for it. Line-by-line analysis is not necessary and can be replaced with "worlds-comparison." All new arguments need to be included in the 1 or the 2. As for POIs, the 1-3 should be taking at least 2 POIs, but I'd recommend three. On the one hand, please don't be spamming POIs, but also if you are speaking at least gesture if you plan to (or not) take a POI so someone isn't just left standing there. Lastly, don't be abusive, or try to crowd your opponents out of the debate, I will mark you down for it. If there's anything I didn't address here, please feel free to ask about it before the round starts.

Lillian Albrecht Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon July 8, 2024 at 9:17 AM CDT

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com (For PFBC, you only need to include my personal email)

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

Blake Andrews McNeil High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat July 20, 2024 at 2:53 PM CDT

Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Former Head Coach McNeil HS

Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC, UTNIF, U of H for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while, but am currently not coaching just judging.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah).

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

Jawad Bataineh Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 5:40 AM CDT

I did public forum debate for 4 years at Westlake (graduated 2022), qualified to the TFA twice and the TOC once. SPEECHDROP, don't email me.

Tech>truth. I can evaluate a flow

I don't have any topic knowledge but it shouldn't matter. Bring up everything you want me to know in speech.

Don't go too fast. I haven't debated for a while and was never great with too much speed, especially if you're unclear. I evaluate MY flow, so I can only evaluate the responses and weighing that I was able to hear and flow in round.

Don't say anything offensive or I'll tank your speaks and potentially down you.

Be respectful to everyone in round or I'll tank your speaks.

As far as progressive argumentation goes, I'm fine with theory and probably okay with K's (I ran a couple cap Ks but otherwise am not super familiar with any others, though I generally know how they work. also keep in mind I did PF). Friv theory is fine, but my threshold for responding to it will be lower than it would be for a regular shell. Extend all parts of a theory shell and the underviews that you want to be considered in summary/final.

Disclosure is good but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Paraphrasing is probably bad but I'm more lenient to it than a lot of judges and I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Content/trigger warnings are good and it will be difficult to sell me on tw bad theory, but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it.

Second rebuttal has to frontline. Summaries have to extend everything you're going for (defense is not sticky) with warranting (NOT just card names and jargon) and should collapse. Everything in final needs to be in summary. You should point it out if your opponents bring up new stuff in final so that I can scratch it off in case I didn't catch on. With the exception of second constructive, arguments are dropped if they aren't covered in the next speech.

I presume by flipping a coin unless told to do otherwise in round.

I don't look at evidence unless I'm told to call for it/it becomes a major point of contention. Indicts need to have clear warranting.

PLEASE weigh. Your defense is probably not as good as you think it is and I will need weighing to evaluate the round. Strength of link is not a real weighing mechanism. Probability usually isn't either. If your opponent reads responses as "probability weighing" or does strength of link just point it out and tell me to scratch it off my flow so I don't have to evaluate it.

If you egregiously misconstrue evidence, I will drop you. So far I have been relying on kids to point this out during round, but from now on if I notice it and its badyou're done.

Ilan Benavi Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 10:49 AM EDT

King Update:

Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for teams that don't send all case and rebuttal evidence before the speech

I debated for four years on the national circuit and now coach for Westlake

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: ilanbenavi10@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us

Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments

I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

Part III - Weighing

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments

FW:

I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.

Shivani Bhagat Jordan High School 2 rounds

Akhil Bhale Westwood 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 10:16 AM CDT

Call me Akhil. Westwood '22

Important

1) If you plan on going fast, start at like 70% speed and ramp up from there. Slow down on tags and pls pls pls number your responses.

2) Don't assume I'm caught up on the meta of topics, explain acronyms and do the necessary work.

3) I care about rounds starting on time. Please come to rounds already preflowed and ready to begin. Flight 2s should ideally already have email chains set up with the Aff/Neg ready to be sent out.

4) I want to be on the email chain- akhilbhale@gmail.com

Send a compiled doc of cut cards that you will be reading BEFORE your speech. This means you should create an email chain and send your docs as attachments in the email, preferably not in the body. Sending a link to a Google Doc is a no-go; download the Google Doc as a Word document and attach it to the email instead.

Miscellaneous

I'm somewhat stubborn with speaks and will probably average around 28.5-29 . Receiving anything above necessitates a combination of good strategy, reading from cut cards (whenever evidence is first introduced), and disclosing broken positions.

Considering this is an evidence-based activity, good evidence, and its surrounding ethics matter to me. Cut and read good evidence.

Flex prep and tag-team crossfires are fine. Skip grand cross if everyone agrees too. Please don't steal prep, I will notice. Your pens should be down and your fingers off your computer if you're not prepping.

Every claim needs to be warranted the first time it's introduced for you to go for it later. I keep a pretty clean flow and will notice if there are incomplete or missing warrants.

The second rebuttal should frontline everything on the argument they go for and start the collapse debate. I care about good frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. There's a fine line between lazy frontlining and efficient frontlining. Defense IS NOT sticky but my threshold for first summary defense extensions is a lot lower if the 2nd rebuttal goes for everything on case.

Weighing [ :( ]. In the wise words of Evan Burkeen- "I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me." If you're going for a "link-in", I need a reason why your "link-in" outweighs their impact standalone.

I have a decent threshold for extensions. This encompasses everything- any offense, defense, or argument you want to be evaluated must have a coherent extension of it. This doesn't mean that it has to be super long or sophisticated, just present.

Link turns need to have uniqueness attached to it. For example, if the aff says HSR makes Democrats win the midterms, to link turn this the neg has to win that HSR makes Democrats lose AND that Democrats are winning the midterms now.

Read impact turns, they're fun. I don't need an extension of the link scenario.

Kicking turns by conceding no-links requires an explanation of why the no-link kicks out of the turn. Absent an explanation, the team reading the turn can go for it in the next speech.

I'm fine with some levels of sarcasm/pettiness/trolling- it's funny but don't be mean to novices.

I vote neg absent offense.

Theory

Most open to hearing disclosure and paraphrase theory but curious to see what other violations you can extrapolate. Personally think disclosure (open source) is good and paraphrasing is bad but obviously won't hack for these arguments.

Not voting on TW/CW/Opt-out theory.

Uninterested in hearing arguments about new or novice debaters not having to disclose/cut cards, don't compete in Varsity if that's the case. I default to competing interpretations, exact text of the interp and (no?) RVIs. The no RVIs debate has always been confusing to me and it really depends on the CI being read. I.e if the interp is "must read from cut cards" and the CI is "must read paraphrased cards", the CI team should obviously get to win if they win their interp. For other CIs that are not competitive, probably default to no RVIs.

Shells must be read after the first instance of the violation. There are no limits on this- you can read paraphrase theory in 1st summary if 2nd rebuttal is the first instance of paraphrased cards.

I will be very happy if you read Topicality with a good definition card and can articulate a context-specific violation.

Not a stickler for theory extensions, just allocate the time elsewhere and do the necessary work on the standard/weighing,

Kritiks

Probably not the best for Kritiks but have decent exposure to them. Pretty familiar with generics like Cap and Security but will do my best to understand/judge other literature. Please clearly delineate links to the Aff and explain the alt/rotb/rotj.

I'd rather you not spread through your prewritten extensions and instead engage with the line by line.

K affs- I probably err neg on T/Fw but I think an Aff strategy of impact turns against impacts like fairness, and a durable CI makes voting Aff substantially easier.

This is still kinda incomplete and I'll add more things as I remember but if you have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out to me via email (it should be hyperlinked above).

Gary Boeger Bellaire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 12:19 PM CDT

CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.

I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.

PF 1. obviously clash is a must. I prefer all debaters take part in grand cross fire, but will judge on case by case. Clear impacts and weighing mechanism.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.

4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Prose, Poetry

1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.

3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

Cooper Carlile Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 9:12 AM EDT

he/him.

I debated for Strake Jesuit for four years in Public forum and graduated in 2020. I am a senior at Georgetown University studying Science, Technology, and International Affairs. I won TFA State my senior year, and I qualified to the Gold TOC my senior year with bids from Glenbrooks and Grapevine.

Bold is the most important stuff, but everything else is still important.

email is cooper.carlile@gmail.com and you can facebook message me

Tell me what the structure of the speech is beforehand.

Please extend. If you don't extend, I wont vote for you. If it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it.

It has been a while since I have judged/flowed. Anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech docotherwise I probably wont catch everything especially if i'm unfamiliar with the topic, and its fair to the other team. if you PF spread and don't send a doc I will find that very irritating.

Debate is a game so I will evaluate any argument that you read.

I am TECH + TRUTH (on substance specifically). You should generally treat me as a tech judge though. I say tech + truth because my threshold for late responses to conceded arguments is very high, but I will evaluate them. My threshold for responses to arguments that I think are patently false is very low, but I will still evaluate those arguments. I think the best arguments are true arguments, since they are the easiest to defend and explain and justify a decision for. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded. You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

Theory is good and I like it. Frivolous theory sucks and I hate it. Theory is good because debaters should be held accountable for bad practices. Stuff like "must respond in second constructive" makes me want to find the nearest brick wall and try to dent it with my head. I will still evaluate it, but it would not bode well for you. You can make reasonability or competing interpretations arguments in front of me to respond to Theory and I'll be receptive to either as long as they are effectively warranted. Because it is PF, and it is much harder to read/respond to progressive arguments effectively in general, I will vote on an RVI if they win that their model of debate is better, not if they just beat back the shell.

Kritiks are super cool but difficult to pull off in PF due to time constraints. I have limited experience writing and evaluating Kritiks, but I will evaluate them to the best of my ability if they are read in front of me. My eval of a Topical K will probably be more accurate than a non-T K.

Fastest way to lose a round in front of me is to read tricks.

I determine speaks based on strategy, and only somewhat on speaking ability. I think that persuasion is a key part of both lay and tech debate so I would like to see something other than a monotone presentation.

You should be able to pull up called-for evidence very quickly. I will find it very weird if you can't.

Please for the love of god signpost PLEASE

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" also dont read defense on ur own case

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too. probably not on a panel tho

if im vibing with an arg then you'll probably be able to tell. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

I will disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians on big stage."

Have fun!

Araceli Casasola Dulles High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:59 AM CDT

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

Maddie Cook Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon July 8, 2024 at 9:38 AM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to flip and start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues

Evidence Issues:

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

Paraphrasing.
I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Jerry Crist Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 2 rounds

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 8:46 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Sayan Das Seven Lakes High School 4 rounds

Paula Downie A and M Consolidated High School 6 rounds

Ishan Dubey Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun July 21, 2024 at 1:05 PM EDT

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

Add (for PF email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach there. Most of my competitive results are viewable here.

I view debate as a uniquely valuable intellectual game that centers communication, research, and critical thinking. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I am persuaded first and foremost by the arguments articulated by the debaters. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and parsing clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

The Pro and Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are probably counter-plan adjacent.

I like to reward creativity and hard work.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates. I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Err on the side of over explanation. Impact stuff out, like fully impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Will Erard L C Anderson High School 6 rounds

David Huston Jasper High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:45 AM CDT

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Saumya Jhaveri Hire 6 rounds

Matthew Johns Young Women's Leadership Academy 6 rounds

Matthew Johns, I am a Speech/Debate coach with a Social Studies background. I am a former Lincoln Douglas and Crossfire (Prehistoric caveman version of Public Forum Debate) Debater.

Email for Doc Sharing: matthew.johns@midlandisd.net

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am hearing impaired, I can keep up pretty well if you speak clearly. If you speak too fast, so that I can't understand and flow your argument, I will have a hard time assigning you a victory. Sharing a copy/digital version of the constructive/cards is a plus.

Theory Paradigm: This involves a combination of Policymaker and Game Theorist. I am well versed in Social Studies topics, a History/Political Science major, and am an AP teacher. This means I tend to focus on disadvantages and counter plans to an argument. (Policymaker) Whereas the Game Theorist paradigm suggests I am open to a provocative plan (that might seem absurd or crazy to others) provided it can establish a logical and distinct advantage over the opposing view/plan.

Civility and Decorum matters, so be polite to your opponents, including in the questioning period. You can be firm in cross while being polite. There is a decay of civility in American politics that is concerning to me, and I would like our experience to reflect what is very best about us.

General: I detest spreading as it cheapens the debate into a purely technical hot mess. A humorous thought...could you imagine an actual televised debate where candidates used spreading? Make my job of flowing easy, signpost accordingly and don't rush through your contention's main points. I will not make links and connections for you. I am noticing more and more that teams are failing or inadequately addressing links to impacts. Be sure to drive your impacts with good support. Be sure to clash and weigh where it is appropriate. Definitions are a great way to control the boundaries of the debate when clash is apparent.

Congress: Be sure to clash! I cannot stand it when Congress Debate has people rehashing the same points. It gets tired quickly and I will assign low speaker points if you do not bring new arguments or significantly good analysis of previously stated points.

Lincoln Douglas: See definitions above; I don't love a debate that devolves into definitions, but it can be extremely advantageous to control framing. Framework does not matter if solvency is ignored, and solvency doesn't matter if framework is ignored. If framework and value/value crit are a wash, then I divert back to solvency. I've noticed Aff teams trying to sneak in new points/arguments in their last speech. I will completely disregard if you attempt it, and the speaker points will reflect this.

Public Forum: I've seen too many policy debaters creeping their spreading and incivility into Public Forum Debate. This is meant to be accessible to an educated public audience, not pure technical debate. Go to policy if that's more your cup of tea. I will technical flow, but argumentation and weighing are mechanisms that often wins debates in my paradigm. Evidence analysis matters as well. I've seen really suspect sources that debaters try to slip through.

Policy: If you strike me here, I understand. Spreading is a no go for me. Beyond that Policy lends itself to being a more technical debate than Public Forum that should be lucid, clear, and explained in great depth without spreading. Quality > Quantity.

Sohail Jouya Westwood 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM EDT

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Atul Kapoor Plano West Sr High School 6 rounds

Pranav Kasibhatla Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 12:02 PM CDT

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: vedaprasana@gmail.com

she/her

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

Bryce Keeler Hire 6 rounds

Tuyen Le Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 19, 2024 at 1:31 PM CDT

Email chain/questions: tuyendebate@gmail.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

Round should start at start time, that means first word should be spoken at start time. I will dock your speaks by .2 for every minute past start time that the first constructive has not been sent.

__________________________________________________

Background/Important info:

University of Houston (Policy debate '21 -'23), BCHS (LD ‘19-‘21), debate coach at Seven Lakes HS (‘23-Current)

Political science major with a focus in international relations/political theory and a philosophy minor.

***I will not vote on anything that happened outside of round - If you are about to debate someone that makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable please sort this out with TAB before round rather than making it an in-round voting issue.

_________________________________________________

GENERAL (for all debates):

TLDR: I am primarily a policy debater and tend to evaluate rounds like a policy judge

Policy/Cap > Security/Set Col/Phil > Identity Ks > Tricks/LD Theory

^^^ Based on my level of experience with specific args - Debaters work hard and I will always try my best to adapt to you, but my experience and knowledge of args varies. For the most part, you can run what you want and I will vote on anything, but your burden of explanation increases the further you move down the list above. That being said I would suggest that you do not over adapt. You are more likely to win running an argument you’re good at and know well.

Tech > truth in most cases - but truth determines your burden of proof. ie even if the burden is lower you still need to make a complete argument with warrants/ev and you need to adequately explain the arg to me. If it is not a complete arg then i don't care if they dropped it, its not going on my ballot.

I think almost everything is debatable, will vote on almost anything with a warrant and impact

Will evaluate the round exactly how you tell me to - The more weighing you do and the more judge instruction you give the less likely I’ll have to intervene to make a decision. If you do neither of these things do not be upset when I have to arbitrarily decide how to evaluate the round.

I will vote off the flow - I don't care how good your evidence is if you don't debate it well. I think more debaters should be punished for reading terrible evidence, but i will not do the work of looking through their ev for you. You should do warrant comparison and call out bad ev. yourself and implicate that to the round. I only flow the things said in your speech, but I will still follow along on the doc to check for clipping. (Horrendous clipping is an auto L).

Time yourself and your opponents

-------

Specific Args:

My paradigm for LD, CX, PF are combined below. Read what applies and skip what doesn’t. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it and that it is up for you to debate.

K --- I have and will vote on any K that is debated well, HOWEVER:

I prefer Ks that critique structures over identity Ks. Two reasons:

1. Unfamiliar with the lit bases - I am often unsure of what the alt to these Ks do. I have no idea what death drive, black ontology, etc means as an alt, however, I have voted on all of them before. I am just less familiar with these literature bases and am better for Ks like cap and security.

2. In round violence- I think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. This makes me sad because I think K lit is interesting and great, but it’s implementation in debate has pushed me towards policy args. An articulation that is just an ad hom is a losing one.

Ks on the AFF: All of the reasons above make me quite receptive to FW against K AFFs. Specifically, if you read a K AFF but cannot provide a reason for why your arguments should be negated then I am more likely to be convinced by FW.

Ks on the NEG: I like clash rounds and I am much more likely to vote for a K on the neg than a K on the AFF. Specifically if you run Ks like cap like a cp+da or security like a case turn. Ks which are able to interact with the aff on the fiat-consequences level have a much higher chance of getting my ballot than Ks that garner offensive from proximate violence impacts.

CP --- I default to judge kick if there’s no offense on the CP. Creative and niche CPs that actually solve are cool.

DA —- I'll evaluate them in the order of Impact > Link > Uniqueness when no other offense is present.

I tend to default to evaluating the round like a policy maker. I CAN vote on risk of a link, but I think it’s also possible to zero the link in rare instances.

Theory—- My threshold for voting on theory is slightly higher than for other args since it’s premised on being able to prove abuse (this does not include any type of topicality arg).

The greater the time constraints in the debate event the more I err towards the team defending against theory since that minimizes the need for judge intervention. In policy debate, theory is fine since there is enough time to develop arguments and thus I tend to view theory in policy as a legit strategic tool. In PF theory makes me want to cry.

Disclosure: I do not want to see your laptop screen after the speech. If you have screenshots/evidence of non disclosure you should put it in the doc. Things said/shown to me during the speeches are the only things I will evaluate.

------

Extra notes for specific events:

PF ---

Read less and better args - I feel that this activity has single handedly caused me to lose many brain cells. I can no longer bring myself to vote on these horrifically warranted link chains that have 0 explanation in ff. Because ev practices in PF are so bad and no one reads warrants my ballot has increasingly been decided on purely which link chain I understand more.

Procedural stuff - If you send all the cards you are going to read before your speech and don't paraphrase I will boost your speaks and give you at least a 28.

You must start the prep timer if you want to ask a question outside of CX period.

Weighing - I will judge the round like a policy maker under an offense defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. If there is no offense in the final focus you will probably lose.

I notice that in most PF rounds, weighing doesn’t end up playing a large part in my decision making process despite the fact that the impact is the first place I look to when evaluating the round. This is because PFers tend to weigh in a vacuum- ie they do not contextualize the weighing to the amount of the impact that is actually accessed. Or they also do not tell me why, for example, I should prefer time frame over magnitude or wtv else

K: You can run it if you think you can explain it to me in 4 minutes

Defense is not sticky: I will only evaluate things that get extended throughout the debate all the way into the last speech.

Second rebuttal must extend case but I do not require you to give an overview - responding to lbl is considered an extension i.e. answering the no link is extending your link but you must also extend arguments dropped by the other team if you want me to evaluate them at the end of the round. I will not extend args for you just because they are dropped.

LD ---

I ran phil and did mostly traditional LD in high school because my program was small, but I have done policy debate in college and have been judging on the circuit long enough for you to treat me like a regular tech judge.

What this means is…

- I tend to judge phil like an LDer and everything else like a policy debater. As in, I tend to switch back and forth between LD being about truth testing vs competing worlds depending on the content of the round. In a policy v phil round you should explicitly tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

- Phil: while I know phil lit., I have not thought about them extensively in the context of debate arguments. I like phil debates but only when they are substantial. I have a pretty good background for all the very basic and generic phils (Kant, Hobbes, any other enlightenment philosopher, etc.)

- Theory/Tricks: I am unfamiliar with a lot of LD theory and tricks. This means my capabilities to flow your 32 point analytical 1NC shell decreases. I will judge these rounds based on my knowledge of theory in policy.

________________________

Spreading: I don’t care how fast you go if you're clear, but if I don't hear you it's your fault. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

Speaks --- I'll start at 28 and move up or down from there.

Speaks + : make good strategic decisions, are funny, creative, show good understanding of the topic/args, are efficient, organized. I reward the most speaks to debaters who are kind and make debate an enjoyable and welcoming space

Speaks - : Make personal attacks, are unorganized, don’t clash, waste time/steal prep

Julie Liu Hire 6 rounds

Meredith MacLeod Frisco Lebanon Trail 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:23 PM CDT

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

Amogh Mahambare Westwood 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:16 PM CDT

GBX 2023

- send constructive and rebuttal docs with cards to both emails before you read them

- set up the chain BEFORE you come into round

- I have done a considerable amount of topic research

- I think open source is a good norm

Westwood '22

Coach for Westwood

Email for email chains (I want to be on it)/questions/anything really: amoghdebatedocs@gmail.com AND westwoodpfdocs@gmail.com

I will flow every speech and be focused on the round. I love the activity and know how much time you put in - you deserve a judge that pays attention and that cares. Go as fast as you want but be clear. More often than not you don't need to read 4 contentions or go as fast are you're going - quality is way more important than quality.

Speaks are a function of strategy (good collapsing, weighing, going for dropped turns and doing it well, etc) and practices (disclosure, cut cards, etc). I do not care what you wear. Speaks will range from 28 to 30 unless you do something unacceptable.

I will research most, if not all, of the topics. So, you can assume I have background knowledge, but if you're reading something super specific explain it and your acronyms.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

If you want a short version - I agree with Akhil Bhale.

Non-negotiables:

- No prep stealing (it's quite obvious)

- Have the cut card for any piece of evidence that you read easily accessible (bare minimum), if your going to send links to large PDFs please strike me.

- I am uninterested in listening to and will not vote for arguments that endorse self-harm or suicide. Spark and other hypothetical impact turns are fine.

- Do not use racist/sexist/misogynistic rhetoric.

- I will "flow" cross-examination and it is binding (it exists for a reason). I hate it when teams don't understand their own arguments and this is the time to make it obvious. Probably won't be a voting issue but could be made into one.

"Preferables" (your speaks will automatically improve but I won't hold it against you unless convinced otherwise by theory etc.) :

- Disclose previously broken positions on the wiki (personally think new Affs/Negs are good but that is a debate to be had)

- Read from cut cards

- Send constructive and rebuttal docs with all the cards before your speech. I will never call for specific evidence after the round. If I think the evidence will decide or influence my decision I will go to speech docs to read it, if it isn't there too bad. Sending evidence after the round is just a way for debaters to send new evidence they didn't read, highlight evidence, cut parts out - I don't want to deal with that. TLDR: It helps both you and the debate if you send docs. I am a sucker for good evidence. If you have some really good evidence make sure I know about it - call it out by name. Again not an excuse for not debating - don't hide behind your evidence.

- Pre-flow before the round.

General:

- Tech > Truth (to an extent) - if an argument is dropped it is considered true but still has to be an argument for you to win on it (ie. it must be extended with uniqueness/link/internal link/impact), new implications or cross applications justify new responses to the specific implication. If you blow up a 2-second rebuttal blip - my threshold for responses won't be very high. More stuff on progressive arguments later.

- Read whatever you want to read - do your own thing. More on specific progressive arguments later.

- Open CX is fine (both people can speak/explain during cross-examination). Flex prep is fine and often good (ask questions during your prep time).

- 2nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline everything on the argument you're going for. Efficiency will be rewarded with good speaks. Defense is not sticky. Most "weighing" is new responses more on that later - at the latest 1st final but that's probably way too late and justifies 2nd final responses which isn't good for you anyway. 0 risk is a thing, but most defense will be evaluated on a probabilistic scale. 1st summary is the last time, I will flow new arguments. (There is a distinction between new arguments and new weighing - be careful.)

- Most substantive questions will be revealed on a probabilistic scale - comparative risk of the arguments. In 99% of debates, both sides will win some offense so comparative weighing and impact calculus can and often decides rounds. Procedural arguments often have to be evaluated on a yes/no basis (does the AFF violate the interp, RVIs or no RVIs, etc.)

- Turns. I love them but they are often done terribly. 99% of link turns need uniqueness to be offensive (ie. If the AFF tells me there is no negotiation in the status quo, and the NEG goes for a link turn about how the AFF makes negotiation worse, I have no idea what the impact to negative negotiation is.) Impact turns are also often interesting debates - if the link is contested (I hope it isn't if you're going for an impact turn) or if your opponents go for a different argument, then extend it clearly. If both teams seem to agree to the link and it just becomes an impact debate, I don't really care about link extensions too much. There are only 2 types of turns. Link turns and impact turns. New DAs and ADVs are often labeled as turns but you won't fool me and don't try - more on that later.

- Weighing. Also something I love but is often done wrong. There are three weighing mechanisms: probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a subset of those three (ie. scope is a subset of magnitude) or isn't a weighing mechanism (ie. clarity of the strength of the link or whatever people like to say.) Unless convinced otherwise (which is easily possible), link weighing/debating > impact weighing. I often find that nuclear war outweighs climate change or poverty outweighs death is irrelevant with good link weighing. I will give examples of link weighing below: at the latest these arguments need to be introduced by 1st summary. Probability link weighing are no-link arguments or "mitigatory defense." Stuff like "it is hard for terrorists to get BMDs because of monetary and technical constraints" is definitely link defense and needs to be in 1st summary at the latest. Probability is a function of how much defense you win on an argument, I will not arbitrarily assign probabilities (ie. say climate change is more probable than nuclear war) - you have to explain to me why that is the case which often is just link defense. Timeframe link weighing can be great. Arguments like the NATO bank at the earliest even if created won't get funding for years etc. Magnitude link weighing is really good and often underused (ie. "scope of solvency"). Solving bitcoin emissions won't solve climate change writ large etc. That being said, I can be convinced that impact weighing comes before link weighing. Arguments like extinction first and Bostrom and viable and can also be good. I hope everyone knows what impact weighing is so not going to go too in-depth on that. Last note - turns case is really, really good and also really, really underutilized in PF. Conflict probably ends negotiations, climate change probably makes war more likely, economic growth probably resolves underlying conditions for crime, etc. These types of arguments can really help you frame a round and establish why your came case comes first. Impact weighing and turns case can come by 1st final by the latest.

- Try or die can be convincing if done well. It is often a great strategy if you are going for an extinction impact and the NEG has conceded uniqueness. This is not an excuse for not frontlining - 0 risk is a thing. Timeframe is a really good weighing mechanism in try or die/extinction first debates and can often implicate probablity.

- Framing debates are also really interesting - extinction first etc. Framing arguments are not a substitute for link debate but a supplement. If you win policy paralysis and the other team wins a very large risk of their extinction scenario, the other team has probably won the round.

"Substance":

- Quality > quantity. Not too many interesting thoughts here. Good weighing and link debating wins rounds - avoiding clash, being shifty, and dumping blips doesn't.

- Empirics aren't arguments but can help your position combined with warrants. If you have good empirics that are specific to the mechanism of the resolution/your argument you're probably in a good spot.

- I could care less about quantified impacts. They are often random predictions by conspiracy theorists or terrible models. Even worse, debater math. I would much rather your impact be economic growth than some math you did with different studies and percentages. Extinction is an impact, recession is an impact, etc - I do not care about your 900 million card.

- Kicking case in reading a new DA/ADV in 2nd rebuttal is a bad idea. You essentially just wasted half of the debate. I will have a very low threshold for responses and encourage theory. This is different from reading 4 minutes of turns (ie. kicking case and just going for prolif good). I am perfectly fine with that, in fact, that would be quite fun.

Below are some thoughts on progressive argumentation. Don't read these arguments to win rounds - it's quite obvious. You disclose for the first time and read disclosure theory, change from full text to open source for 1 tournament to meet your interp, etc. I will still vote for it if you win but your speaks won't be great. Also, don't read progressive arguments just to beat novices - I will give you the worst speaks I possibly can.

Theory:

- I have mixed feelings on disclosing broken interps - could be convinced either way. In general, meta-theory is interesting and under-used.

- Topicality is also interesting. Define words in the resolution. Intent to define and evidence quality is extremely important. Unlike most theory debate, precision, your interpretation, and the evidence matter a lot more to me than the limits/ground debate.

- While I will not "hack" against these arguments be aware it is an uphill battle if you are defending paraphrasing good or disclosure bad. If you win your CI and everything on the flow of course I will still vote for you. If it is a close-round, you know which way I am probably going to vote.

- I default to competing interpretations, no RVIs, spirit of the interp, and drop the debater. I can easily be convinced otherwise. If paradigm issues are dropped/agreed upon they do not need to be extended in every speech. If the debate devolves to just theory under competing interps - I am voting for the better model of debate, I could not care that you won no RVIs (personally, no RVIs doesn't mean you can't win on a counter-interp in my mind)

- Reasonability is a good tool against mis-disclosure (open-source versus full text etc) and frivolous shells. You should still read a counter interp - but explain why the marginal differences in your models of debate are outweighed by substance crowd out etc.

- Read your shell the speech after the violation (if they paraphrase in 2nd rebuttal - feel free to read paraphrasing theory in 1st summary.) Theory after that is fairly late and really hard to have good clash, thus probably will result in intervention but if you think its necessary read it (bad language etc.)

- For some reason, small school counter-interps are quite popular and I get why (I read them myself a few times.) However, I am inclined to believe that arbitrary entry limits are just that arbitrary. Also, a lot of small schools are in big prep groups with a lot of resources, or just don't have a lot of people competing etc.

- Theory is unaccessible is a terrible argument - there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to any other argument.

- Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

K's:

- "Substantive Ks" like Cap K or Security K are great but probably will just be evaluated as DAs or impact turns. Reading it as a K is often just an excuse to get out of the uniqueness debate, and when your alternative is just rejection, I don't think that gets you very far.

- Non-topical positions are also fine - I am familiar with most of the stuff people read in PF, but if you're reading high-theory or something confusing - slow down and explain it. I won't vote for something I can't explain back to you. This is my one exception to disclosing new Affs/Negs. I strongly believe non-topical positions should be disclosed before the debate to allow for clash.

- I slightly lean towards T/FW against K affs/negs probably because K debate in PF isn't done very well - but can easily be convinced otherwise. K teams should go for impact turns, weigh the K against the shell, and have a good CI that mitigates the limits offense. Do not read a K based on research about x argument and discourse and then make a prepouts bad argument on theory - that doesn't make too much sense. Weighing is really important in these rounds and I find that the theory teams get away with some stuff too easily (answer stuff like fairness is key to participation which comes before your method.)

- I am also down for a method v method debate, or PIKs etc. Conditionality is probably good against a new K aff/neg (ie. fine with T/FW combined with a PIK etc)

- Long pre-written overviews are not as useful as line-by-line and specific weighing.

- Also, please have an actual method. If you say "vote for me because I pointed this out," you probably won't get my ballot.

- Paraphrased Ks are a big no. Non-negotiable.

If you got this far, thank you for taking the time to read this. If you have any questions feel free to email me whenever. I will always disclose unless the tournament explicitly tells me not to. Postrounding is good if it is constructive and educational - but this time, I will have already submitted my ballot and will not be able to change it. Feel free to email me questions after the round as well.

Aditya Markan Hire 6 rounds

Ruth Martin Hire 6 rounds

Cale McCrary Westwood 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 10:43 PM CDT

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Sheetal Mehta Seven Lakes High School 5 rounds

Thomas Parker Lake Travis High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 5:10 AM CDT

parkert@ltisdschools.org

Background: I'm a first year debate coach at Lake Travis (Austin, TX). I'm also a lawyer and teacher. I debated mostly LD but graduated HS in 2004.

ALL Debate: I'm a mostly tech judge, with some exceptions below. I will generally not vote on frivolous theory. If you want to make an argument about abuse or norm violations, I am open to it, just make sure you're telling a clear story here.

I will usually drop speaks for repeatedly telling me that your opponent dropped or conceded an argument that was clearly addressed. Point out drops, but don't lie to me. (this is not about a mistake or accidental statement, this is for the people who compulsively say that every argument was "clean conceded" when they weren't)

For docs, please use speechdrop if at all possible. My stupid school email has a ridiculous filter and it will often take a few hours for your email chain to get to me.

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

CX: I'm not generally a policy judge so I am not going to be fluent in the deeper jargon (if you're abbreviating everything in particular). Explain your arguments if you want me to vote on them, don't just blip through them.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

LD: My LD experience is a bit outdated from the current circuit standard. I am very open to new innovations and outgrowths since I debated, but my fluency in modern off-case argumentation is a bit limited. I'm open to voting on those, but you'll need to explain them well and be clear with your voters. I don't have any strong feelings on policy vs philosophical approaches. Tricks suck. If I don't understand the argument, I won't be voting on it.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

PF: The above information applies to PF rounds as well, with the added provision that I will reduce speaks for being cruel/disrespectful of opponents (and I don't like that I have to put that here for PF)

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

Congress: I am looking for both strong content and speaking for my Congress ranks. One without the other is not a recipe for a good score. Speakers that use the bulk of their speech rehashing earlier points usually get scored down. Clash is good, just make sure you're not mischaracterizing the opposition's argument when you do so.

Particularly incisive points (especially as clash points) are likely to draw my attention. I do pay attention during questioning - strong lines of questioning (or defenses to your own position) are likely to result in a higher rank.

You should be cognizant of the speech you're giving in a round. For example, if you're giving a sponsorship, you should be explaining how this bill solves the problem you're trying to address.

For POs: Generally the best POs are the POs where I barely notice them as the round runs smoothly. I typically rank good POs well, but rarely will they get the 1 unless it's a particularly weak round.

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

Extemp: Similar to Congress, I'm looking for both Strong content and strong speaking skill. One without the other will rarely receive top ranks on my ballot. I'm not looking for a specific number of sources, but good/varied sourcing is important.

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

Interp: Interp events are where I definitely have the least experience. Generally, though, I'm pretty standard as an interp judge - i'm looking mostly for strong characterization and (in the relevant events) narrative structure.

Robert Michael Perry Hire 6 rounds

Sherri Perry St Agnes Academy 3 rounds

Kyla Pertuit Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 10:16 AM EDT

My email is kylapertuit1@gmail.com please make an email chain before the round and send all docs and evidence for each speech.

My Background: I did PF in highschool for four years, ranked #1 win rate in the state of Montana for two years, won state my senior year, and was an NSDA national qualifier for three years in a row. I currently do policy debate at Baylor University.

Top Level: Please do impact calculus, weigh the round, and weigh every argument you want to win! Even if you are making good arguments I need you to tell me how you want me to evaluate the round and what arguments I should be prioritizing.

I like to see line by line comparison and teams truly engaging with the others' arguments. If you listen to your opponent's whole speech and just say they are wrong with no strong explanation or offense, I am letting the initial argument stand. You have to engage with their arguments and tell me why it doesn’t stand and then say why your arguments are better. I will vote for the team that does a better job proving to me why their idea is better, not just why the other teams are bad. Tell me why you should win.

Speed: You can spread but send the doc and please be clear. Overall I prefer quality over quantity so if you can’t articulate strong clear arguments while spreading, then don’t spread. Regardless, slow down on the analytics and sign post where you want your arguments to flow.

Evidence: Please send full cards and all evidence read in your speech in the email chain. Low tolerance for clipping cards or misrepresenting evidence. Read direct quotes from your evidence, don't paraphrase.

Etiquette: Be nice to each other. I understand being passionate and by all means be passionate about your arguments but if you are blatantly rude, don't allow your opponent to answer your questions, or cut them off in cx, I will give you 20 on your speaker points. Even if you are technically winning the round I probably won’t vote for you, there is no reason to be rude, be kind to each other.

Cross: This is my favorite part of the round and you should use this time strategically. It is extra time to convince me of your arguments. What's said in cx you should be held to. Feel free to use this time to clarify questions, knock down the logic in their arguments, or make yours look stronger but don’t just ramble, make strong points and be nice while you do it like I said above.

K: I am not a fan of Ks in PF. If you do not have an alt you obviously don't have access to any of your arguments, have an alt! You have to prove that your alt actually does something, if you can’t I won’t vote for you.

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 10, 2024 at 6:19 AM CDT

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position, assuming the abuse story is as stupid as I think many of them are.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Ryed Qamar Memorial High School 3 rounds

Preethi Rajgopal Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 10:32 AM CDT

About me: I graduated from Indiana University in 2022 and am currently a consultant. I competed in PF for 2 years in Austin and then 1 year of Policy in college. I want to preface that if there is any way at all that I can make this round a more safe and fun experience for you, please don't hesitate to reach out to me at preethi.rajgopal@gmail.com. It's also important to make debate accessible to you in any way I can so feel free to let me know if there is anything I can do as a judge in order to accommodate you.

TLDR; Sign post, reference framework if you use any, tell me clearly how to weigh the arguments and why, be respectful, and most importantly collapse and condense as the round progresses - each round should be like a funnel!

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, but that doesn't mean I vote on arguments that aren't fleshed out and extended. I will vote on the least mitigated link chain, with a heavily weighed impact. A debate round should mimic a funnel, meaning that arguments should be collapsed on as the round progresses. It's also helpful if both you and your partner develop a narrative from the beginning of the round and reference it over the course of the round. Be sure to signpost as well as give me a clear road map before speeches. And if you say anything sexist, ableist, racist, etc expect an L25. Debate is meant to be educational and safe - lets keep it that way!

Speed: Send me the speeches anyways so I can follow along but especially if you are going to spread send your speech docs to preethi.rajgopal@gmail.com. Be aware of your speed around less experienced debaters - Spreading as a way to confuse your opponents is not a strategy that sits well with me. Also on that note - keep your own time, you all are young adults and I expect you to act that way. If I can’t trust you on keeping time, how can I trust your evidence?

Framework: If you read a framework, be sure to actually bring it up as the round progresses, don't just not mention it again after constructive. I fully expect you to talk about your framework in your last speeches to inform me on how you think I should weigh the round. In general, if a framework isn't provided to me I will default util. That being said, don't read structural violence arguments/based frameworks without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists and its implications. I will not accept a shallow interpretation of sensitive issues. If you choose to bring it up you should be able to warrant the arg and talk about appropriately. Simply stating the oppression of others will not win you a round with me.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal should frontline offense especially turns. Don’t forget to extend any important pieces of information, remember the funnel mentioned above.

Summary: Please weigh and collapse. Anything you want me to vote on should be mentioned in summary. Make it clear by this point in the round which arguments you are going for.

Final Focus: Final focus should mirror the summary speech.

Weighing: Dropping jargon such as we outweigh on magnitude/scope/timeframe without explaining/warranting anything to me does not count as weighing. I need you to explain why magnitude>scope or timeframe>magnitude, explain why your weighing mechanism should be preferred over your opponents. If you don't weigh I will be forced to do it for you and I will default util.

Evidence: Be sure you aren't misinterpreting the author's intent. Make sure you can pull up your evidence if your opponents ask for it. If I can’t make the same conclusions you are making from the cards or verify any claims I can’t weigh that in the round. So don't do any crazy debater math because it makes the round un educational. Please be honest with your evidence - I am nosy and will verify things. If you need me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me in your speech. I generally won't ask to see any evidence unless you explicitly tell me to or if I think there is any evidence ethics issues.

Cross: Just relax and don't be rude. I will dock speaks if you ask a question and cut off your opponent when they are genuinely trying to give you an answer. If you need me to evaluate something from cross, be sure to mention it in your speech. If your partner says something they shouldn't have in cross, I think there's an opportunity to come back from that - you just need to explain to me why I should value one partner’s statements over the others.

Speaks: Speaks are based on clarity and strategy. Please be kind to your opponents as there is a difference between being assertive versus overly aggressive and rude. +1 speaks if you make me laugh. Curse words are fine, nothing too foul, we are here to learn not to try new words.

Theory/K's/CP's: I don't have much familiarity with progressive arguments because as a debater I always debated substance. If you do decide to run theory make sure it is warranted and merited, don't just read it as a means to mess with your opponents. If you run theory I will evaluate it as the most important argument in the round, and be sure to really explain it, and remember I don't have much experience with evaluating it. You should be able to explain your theory clearly enough so that both I and your opponents (even less experienced ones) understand the argument you are making. A “dropped” argument is only true if it was properly explained and flow-able in the first place. Although I will vote off of progressive arguments, please be very clear so everyone in the room can follow along.

Finally, debate is a stressful activity in itself so please be respectful and be kind to your opponents and have fun:) Always happy to answer any questions, give detailed feedback or address any concerns.

Vedanth Ramabhadran Hire 6 rounds

Shuba Ravikumar Flower Mound High School 6 rounds

Carrie Reavis Rouse High School 3 rounds

Dariela Rodriguez Earl Warren High School 6 rounds

Neha Satish Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 8:46 AM CDT

About me: I am pursuing a PhD in Chemistry at UT Austin. I competed in PF on the national circuit for 3 years as well as the Austin circuit. I want to preface that if there is any way at all that I can make this round a more safe and fun experience for you, feel free to email me. I did graduate in 2020 so it has been a few years since I've debated so keep that in mind.

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, but that doesn't mean I vote on arguments that aren't fleshed out and blipply extended. I will vote on the least mitigated link chain, with a heavily weighed impact. A debate round should mimic a funnel, meaning that arguments should be collapsed on as the round progresses. It's also helpful if both you and your partner develop a narrative from the beginning of the round. Be sure to signpost as well as give me a clear road map before speeches. And if you say anything sexist, ableist, racist, etc expect an L25.

Speed: If you are going to spread send your speech docs to nehasatish510@gmail.com, also be sure to be aware of your speed around less experienced debaters

Framework: If you read a framework, be sure to actually bring it up as the round progresses, don't just not mention it again after constructive. In general, if a framework isn't provided to me I will default util.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal should frontline offense especially turns.

Summary: Please weigh and collapse. Anything you want me to vote on should be mentioned in summary. Make it clear by this point in the round which arguments you are going for.

Final Focus: Final focus should mirror the summary speech.

Weighing: Dropping jargon such as we outweigh on magnitude/scope/timeframe without explaining/warranting anything to me does not count as weighing. I prefer when you explain why magnitude>scope or timeframe>magnitude, explain why your weighing mechanism should be preferred over your opponents. If you don't weigh I will be forced to do it for you and that means I will have to intervene which I'd rather not do.

Evidence: Be sure you aren't misinterpreting the author's intent. Make sure you can pull up your evidence if your opponents ask for it. Don't do any crazy debater math because if your opponents can't verify that it makes the round un educational. Please be honest with your evidence. If you need me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me in your speech. I won't ask to see any evidence unless you explicitly tell me to because I believe it promotes judge intervention.

Cross: Just relax and don't be rude. If you need me to evaluate something from cross, be sure to mention it in your speech.

Speaks: Speaks are based on clarity and strategy. Please be kind to your opponents as there is a difference between being assertive versus overly aggressive and rude. +1 speaks if you make me laugh.

Theory/K's/CP's: I don't have much familiarity with progressive arguments because as a debater I always debated substance. If you do decide to run theory make sure it is warranted and merited, don't just read it as a means to mess with your opponents. If you run theory I will evaluate it as the most important argument in the round, and be sure to really explain it, and remember I don't have much experience with evaluating it. Although I will vote off of progressive arguments, please don't run progressive arguments on a clearly less experienced debater/novice.

Finally, debate is a stressful activity in itself so please be respectful and be kind to your opponents and have fun:) Please always feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round!

Katherine Lynne Shadman Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 5:34 PM CDT

please put me on the email chain: kateshadman@gmail.com

^^please send docs, don't dump an entire speech into the body of the email

Colleyville Heritage HS (TX) '20: 4 years PF (tfa and nat circuit)

University of Oklahoma '24: 4(ish) years policy

pronouns: she/her/hers

tl;dr (pf)

do whatever you want, i vote on the flow. your barrier to speed is your opponent (if they can’t handle it don’t do it). please warrant and weigh your arg and terminalize your impacts — if you do this you will most likely win. 2nd rebuttal should frontline, if they don’t defense is sticky in 1st summary. if it’s in final it needs to be in summary. have good evidence ethics.

come in pre flowed and send the email chain at the start time

for roadmaps: just tell me which piece of paper to have on top

tl;dr (cx)

my only cx experience is in college, so I'm not as with it as the other college policy debaters

I don't care what you read, I'll listen to pretty much anything. write my ballot for me, I love judge instruction (especially on the K, implicate it to the round plss). I'm biased for a good policy round but don't get me wrong, I love a good K (most familiar with set col, security, and cap). pls label each piece of paper in the 1NC. regardless of the argument, make sure to extend the link (really hard to vote on anything in the 2AR/NR if it's missing) and implicate your args.

come in pre flowed and send the email chain at the start time

for roadmaps: just tell me which piece of paper to have on top

welcome to my paradigm:

*before your speech, pls just tell me what piece of paper to start on and I'll follow you from there (cx: just give me the order of the sheets of paper)

Warrant, Weigh, Win- it's that simple.

- it needs to be on the flow, I need clean extensions and weighing if you want me to vote on it

(please weigh. please, please, please weigh)

- for it to be an extension, I need claim, warrant, and impact

- tell me why/how you're winning and why your argument matters (write my ballot for me)

- terminalize impacts

- please come in pre-flowed and prepared to debate (i want to start the round asap)

- speech doc/email chain should be sent at the start time of the round (or earlier, just not later)

- signpost, I want to write down all of your wonderful arguments (in the right places)

- speed: i don't care how fast you go, know your opponent (if they can't handle the speed -- don't go fast, if they don't have experience flowing off speech docs, this isn't the round for them to learn), if you're going to go sicko mode, give me a doc, otherwise, I flow on paper if I'm not writing stuff down, slow down

pf specific:

- quality > quantity

- tech > truth

- default util

- I don't like calling for ev. you should be doing the ev analysis yourselves, ie. compare the ev between speeches then say it in the speech (I won't vote on it if it's not on the flow)

rebuttal:

- 1st rebuttal shouldn't be doing case extensions (unless it's an ov, fw, or weighing you want flowed on your case), i already got the args from case, it's just repetitive

- 2nd rebuttal: pls frontline offense

summary:

- if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, defense is not sticky

- if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, defense is sticky

- please weigh (pls, pls, pls)

final focus:

- final focus should mirror the summary (if it's not in the summary it shouldn't be in final) (weighing should also be the same)

- PLEASE DON'T GO FOR EVERYTHING, collapse and narrow down the debate

crossfire:

- start whenever y'all are ready, don't wait on me

progressive args (pf)

I would rather not but, do whatever you want, but, it's extremely hard to do the work you need to do within the pf time constraints and the bar doesn't lower just because it's pf. if you are going to do something funky, one of the biggest mistakes I see is not implicating the K (or whatever) to the round, make sure you do work on page comparison otherwise, it's really hard to see how the argument is relevant to the round. tell me how to evaluate the arg in the context of the round.

"progressive args don't belong in pf" isn't a response (unless you have a beautifully curated block on this arg), you need some legitimate ink on the flow

again, I would rather not judge progressive rounds in pf, if you want to, you run the risk of losing the ballot a lot easier than if you debated traditionally

evidence:

don't do anything stupid and don't take forever to pull up evidence, evidence should be cut properly and cited with a working link, if your opponents are doing something bad/sketch with ev make it a voting issue--I am very likely to vote on it (if it's legit)

personal thing about ev- evidence shouldn't be paraphrased when it's introduced into the round, you should be reading from cards, obviously this gets lost in the back half of the round (which is fine)-- if you are going to paraphrase make sure you have the cut cards available and that you are representing them correctly

Raiyan Shaik Hire 6 rounds

Bryce Sheffield Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 11, 2024 at 8:07 AM CDT

Background ---

UH '26

Conflicted against Seven Lakes HS, Barbers Hill HS, and anyone in Break Debate.

Policy debater at the University of Houston 1x NDT qualifier

Coach for Seven Lakes HS and Break Debate

Put me on the email chain --- debatesheff@gmail.com

If I am judging PF also put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

Overall perspective ---

Please don't call me judge---Bryce is fine

I will vote on anything. I have done extensive policy and K debate so it is naturally my preferred styles. I am open to other styles of debate and will vote on anything just might be less comfortable.

I hate deadtime in debates. It makes me increasingly frustrated when there isn't a timer running and it seems like no one is doing anything. To minimize this please have the email chain with the speech doc sent AT START TIME.

thoughts---essentially the same for policy and LD.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate

--- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

--- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

--- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

--- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

--- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

--- I will not adjudicate anything that didn't happen in the round.

--- New affs bad is a bad argument.

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

Gaurav Srivastva Seven Lakes High School 4 rounds

Manju Sud Seven Lakes High School 4 rounds

Stephen Swamidhas Jordan High School 2 rounds

Enow Tanyi Elkins High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 4:46 PM CDT

Background: I went to Elkins High School and did PF and Extemporaneous Speaking all 4 years. I go to UT Austin now.

My email is tanyienow885@gmail.com. Please start an email chain close to the beginning of round so I don't have to worry about checking cards. Feel free to ask in round if anything isn't clear or listed below.

PF:

TLDR: Be respectful, clear, and organized. I love args that make logical sense.
General: I will not do any work for you. Your case needs to be logically sound and you have to argue as such. These are the types of rounds I enjoy the most. Please give a roadmap before your speech and signpost as you go so I can organize the round well. Respond to frameworks and weighing as soon as possible.
Speed: I'm okay you guys talking fast, but if you spread too fast I might miss something. Shoot for two levels above a conversational pace, so I get all of your argument on my flow.
Jargon: Technical jargon is fine as long as you give me a clear definition before using acronyms or other shorthand. Please don't use too much high level debate jargon because honestly, I've probably forgotten it.
Evidence: In a battle of evidence, I need you to be the tiebreaker. I won't prefer your side just because the card a little more recent. Tell me why it disproves their evidence, why its truth makes theirs irrelevent, etc. Don't be afraid to call your opponent out if their card is truly flawed, because I won't know otherwise.
Sensitive Arguments: Please run cases that concern sensitive topics very carefully. I don't have any conflicts, but trigger warnings for your fellow debaters are appreciated.
Disclosure: I am happy to disclose at the end of the round, give reasons, and answer questions if time and the organizers allow. Otherwise, I'll put as much info as possible on the ballot.
Round-Type: I much prefer traditional debate rounds over theory and kritik rounds. I didn't argue them much myself and rarely ran into them, so I have little experience in those areas. If you are going to run one of those, I would recommend you ensure that the round could not possibly happen otherwise and that its structure is basic.
Speaks: The best speaker gets a 30 and it decreases by .5 from there unless someone is disrespectful or truly needs work on their speech(es).
Conduct: Debate is a respectful setting, so above all, be respectful.

Raquel Threat Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 6:53 PM EDT

Hello everyone,

Email: victoriaaa119@gmail.com

My name is Raquel, and I am a former policy debater with the University of Houston debate team. My experience is entirely with policy debate, but I have judged public forum in the past.

I went 3-3 at the Texas open and ADA nationals. I finished 2nd speaker in my division at the open and finished as a quarterfinalist at CEDA.

For me, warrants and contextualization are very important. It's not just enough to state evidence, your evidence needs to be supported with warrants that explain why said argument is true, and that needs to be further contextualized to the entire debate. Create a story for me. I like to see the development of arguments throughout the debate so I can thoroughly understand your position.

I consider myself more policy oriented, but I have read K's as part of my own negative strategy when debating. K's are great and if you're going to read them, framework should always be present. I need to know how your critique should be evaluated in terms of the consequences/impacts and why that matters. In general, my feeling about k's is the same for all arguments. There needs to be a line of development that unfolds into a story from beginning to end. I need to know how your critique interacts with the topic at hand and what arguments are the most important.

Important-At the end of the day, however, you should always debate in a way that is most comfortable for you and demonstrates your best abilities. Regardless of my paradigm, I will always vote for the strongest argument, and that is wholly dependent on what the debater does. So go all in.

Other than that, have fun and do your best. Please be respectful to one another. There is no need to be disrespectful or overly aggressive with your opponents. Healthy debate is always encouraged. We are all here to learn and use this space as an educational opportunity. Please keep it that way.

Kate Totz Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM CDT

— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —

Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.

I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.

—LD/PF - Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Kien Tran Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 10:22 AM CDT

Bach Tran (he/him)

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

This is based on my familiarity at evaluating things--will vote for anything that is explained well.

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

TL;DR: I vote for anything with a warrant and impact but most comfortable with larp + basic T/Theory/Ks. Regardless of content, if you are technical and know what you are talking about, I will enjoy judging you. I generally try to follow what you say to evaluate debates before inserting my biases so the more judge instruction/comparison you do the better off you will be. Things like what is/isn't new, when can things be new, what's the bar for answering/extending stuff, how should I read a piece of evidence, how should an argument be framed, etc. are all very helpful and increase your chances of winning/getting high points.

Tech>truth--my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but my threshold for beating obviously dumb arguments are pretty low. My bar for what counts as a warrant is not that high and things like "dumb argument" is not a warrant.

I'm generally not that picky with extensions so long as there are properly warranted (i.e, an overview of a conceded advantage is probably fine). Obviously, the details of explanantion should vary proportional to how conceded things are--overviews are probably not enough to replace LBL work on arguments that are contested.

Non-starters: -isms, ad homs, changing speech times, self harm good (wipeout/spark/the death K is fine), eval after [X speech], speaker points theory.

Please start the email chain early/preflow/whatever so the debate can begin as close to the start time as possible.

I flow on paper. I tend to not flow author names. Speed is fine but slow down/inflect on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. Signposting, numbering, and answering arguments in order are also helpful.

Other procedural things: tell me to write stuff down in CX, probably won't time, I always disclose the RFD (+speaker points, upon request). Feel free to preround/postround/email me questions/whatever.

Speaker points: I'm generous with them as long as you are technical, strategic, and generally a nice person. My current average is in the 28.8-29 range.

If you want to initiate an ethics challenge, it's a no take-back. Winner(s) gets W30(s) and loser(s) L0(s). Would prefer that you save this for things like clipping or malicious distortions and not small violations.

Rehighlights: yes insertions if indicting author/context/less than a sentence, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. Debate it out if you think I should/should not evaluate certain insertions.

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

Policy

I like people who know the topic lit and are good at weighing/evidence comparison. You can read whatever as long as you can do these two things. I can be persuaded about zero risk (especially if an impact is very poorly explained).

I like impact turns. Please do 0-off impact turns/case, I promise to give you high points if execution is decent.

I will read evidence if you tell me to (no "read card", yes "read card and check for [thing]"). Good debating can usually overcome good evidence (for the most part). Good analytics + debating can beat bad arguments/cards (for the most part).

Default no judgekick, everything else (condo, PICs/whatever CP, whatever fiat/perms, etc.) are fine unless the other side reads theory. Probably slow down on dense theory stuff (mostly if you are reading like a big textual perm block or something).

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

Ks on the Neg

Know the tl;dr version of mainstream Ks (cap, set col, security and whatnot) + very vague understanding of identity/pomo stuff. Please dump down the confusing philosophies and/or granular details between different theories/authors. Unpacking buzzwords and contemporary/historical examples help a lot. Please do LBL instead of giant overviews (they are bad).

Framework: Realistically, I think "middle-road" is the most reasonable interpretation but I understand the strategic value of excluding the plan or reps/epistimology/etc. So, to each their own--I'm more than happy to weigh the plan or reject rhetoric or critically examine power structures or whatever if you win on the flow that I should do so. Judge instruction for what count as uniqueness/solvency/offense is paramount. My default is probably along the lines of "yes Ks of whatever but they must implicate plan solvency."

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

Theory/T

Send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Default DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs.

I'll vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes theory but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. I'm probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds.

"[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.

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

K Affs

Ideally, the 1AC should defend a change from the squo at least vaguely related to the topic (doesn't have to be policy/larping the USFG) but you can do whatever if you can defend your 1AC. Probably err on more explanation of the aff/method than less.

Debate is probably a game. Anything can(not) be an impact depending on impact calc. Again, no strong opinions--but all else equal I am probably better for affs that defend a CI + impact turns vs only impact turns. That said, I also find impact turns contextualized to neg framework (i.e. "their specific explanation of fairness/limits/etc." is bad) more persuasive than categorical rejection of debate/fairness.

I think KvK rounds are really interesting but you probably want to slow down and explain interactions between the K and the aff + how the perm works (or doesn't work) because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.

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

Phil: Bad for "phil" that is tricks in disguise. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.

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

Tricks: Probably quite bad for this but if you want to go for skep or something feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.

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

Trad: Sure. I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue" (no it's not), "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE" (no it's certainly not) and such.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I'm also down for theory/the K/whatever if you want to (you still need to explain the arguments though...don't just read LD/CX backfiles and call it a day).

Evidence rant:

--No Google Docs. Absolutely not.

--If you don't send evidence/speech docs before speeches I am capping your speaker points at a 28. I don't super care how you share evidence, but if you don't and the round drags on forever, I will be very grumpy. Also if you do paraphrase I want cut cards at the bottom (at that point, why not just read the cut cards...but what do I know...).

--I think generally disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but will still vote on the flow if you win your stuff. If debated evenly, I probably will never vote on paraphrasing good...

--I don't know how PFers get away with reading one-line, unwarranted "cards" with random prepositions as taglines that get spun out of proportions in the backhalf. Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) matters a lot, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should also challenge silly/unwarranted extrapolations of terrible evidence more. If the other team says a blog post is somehow a "meta-study," you should point that out and I will most likely concur. Or alternatively just read better cards and explain evidence in a consistent manner.

2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse but I'm open to ignoring this if you can theoretically justify not doing so. In general, I think answering case in 2nd constructive is an interesting strategy. A full-on, well-executed impact turn dump in 2nd constructive will probably earn you very high points.

I like a lot of warranted, comparative weighing. Please do more link/internal link weighing--I do not care if your impact outweigh if you concede a bunch of link defense. The more warrants/examples you add to this step the easier it would be for both of us. Judge instruction is crucial in the backhalf and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others and don't weaponize others' suffering for competitive benefit.

Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.

Minhhy Truong The Kinkaid School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 12:39 PM EDT

Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.

Flay <------------------*Me*------------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge

*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob

General

E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com

With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.

DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.

CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.

Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.

K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.

If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.

1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.

2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.

3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.

4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.

____________________

Other notes:

Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.

Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.

Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.

Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.

Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...

Open CX is okay with me.

Tech > Truth most of the time

No Tricks

ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.

PF Specific Notes

I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.

Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.

For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner arguments that are dropped on the flow unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.

Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.

If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.

All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.

Nahom Tulu Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 3, 2024 at 11:21 AM EDT

Selam, I'm Nahom

** i will auto down any black trauma centered cases (if ur not black) reading stru viol arguments is fine and implicating racism as an impact is great but dont spell out trauma for shock value**

I debated at Hendrickson for my last 2 yrs of highschool

tech>truth (but pls dont abuse this)

Frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal if u wanna go for it (U DONT NEEDA EXTEND IN REBUTTAL)

Defense is sticky

2nd summary frontlining threshold is high, if ur partner doesn't frontline defense in rebuttal that's fine, but that means ur frontlining must be INSANE, 99% of the time I wont accept it.

Preferences: pls dont read trix imma be so lost, theory is fine if theirs a real abuse, disclosure hurts small schools, paraphrase at ur own discretion, but if its abusive then im down to vote of the T

not super familiar with K's but if it makes sense ill be down to vote off it

speeds fine for me, dont ignore judges paradigms that say not too fast. If your opponents ask for a speech doc, give it to them idc how fast ur going, they may need it for personal reasons.

Clash is cool but I have a soft place in my heart for unique args (not squirrely, theirs a difference) also pls weigh like crazy, and implicate everything

Summary is the most important speech in the round, FF is just for show, unless yall messed up in this round, I shud have my decision by summary, provided both sides weigh/frame the round, otherwise one of yall will think im judge screwing

sum other tips

1. be nice in rounds, rip em a new one all u want, but make sure they're giving u the same energy or u just look dum, I like a nice aggressive crossfire, but walk the line between destroying someone's args and destroying their sense of self carefully, bc (from experience) its a dangerous tightrope that you may not want to walk

2. EXTEND WARRANTS, frontlines are not extensions

3. Weighing/Framing OV in rebuttals r super strategic. weigh bc it'll make me happy, and tbh even if ur barely accessing an arg, if u win weighing that says its the most important, U WIN... for the most part (be careful bc this is diff from other PF debaters that prefer cleaner extensions over weighing strats and link ins)

4. Concede the small things to win the narrative, stats don't matter if ur narrative is bomb, evidence debates are boring, which means if u make it an ev debate I will make the standard for good ev rlly rlly high, and if neither of you have offense speaks will tank and I will default to whatever team i want to

4. Pls be funny, humor is ur greatest tool, joking around in cross and making ur opponents look dum is v enjoyable esp when ur opponents r being rlly aggressive.

5. Any isms (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc) = u lose + i tank ur speaks + i tattle to ur coach

6. Don't be buttholes with theory, ill know if ur just tryna win a round rather then effectively create change, and ill hate u for it. Also dont be hypocritical with theory, idc what ur shell says if u didnt disclose at every round ever on the wiki u better not read disclosure later that year (*cough cough* reading disclosure at the TOC for the first time ever), no shot im buying it.

7. Do NOT, and I'll repeat this to make sure this is super clear, DO NOT read structural violence-based arguments without a clear, nuanced and thoughtful understanding of the oppression that exists. I will never accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this, logic-based warranting is key; for your own sake do not assume my political views/skin color will make me any more attracted to these types of arguments, in fact, I would very much rather prefer you have no understanding of the issues and not read this argument than have a shallow understanding and read these types of arguments. If I sense BS you better believe I will call you out on it.

8. Take risks, ill reward it (collapsing on a turn)

9. Have fuuunsies, debate is a game, winning and losing r aspects of the game, dont take it to seriously, just enjoy urself in the moment and be respectful of one another

if u wanna talk/postround/add me to the chain my email is: tulu.nahom@gmail.com

Christian Vasquez Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 2:46 PM CDT

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Descartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.
The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.
Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.
Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.
Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Cherie Wang Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 11, 2024 at 7:00 AM CDT

paradigm for VBI philadelphia:

Generally all of my thoughts below should be fine I just wanted to add some specific stuff. NO SILLY SPEAKS BUFFS!

PLEASE GET READY AS FAST AS POSSIBLE!

if you are in a high lab debating novices and you go fast at all, i will tank your speaks. im not unwilling to give 26s for making a camp tournament inaccessible for a huge portion of the students here.

make a slack group chat with all the people in the round and send a link to a google doc with link edit access for evidence sharing.

open crossfire is okay if that's what yall want i don't care i'm not flowing it anyway. flex prep also perfectly fine by me just don't abuse it--the tournament is running late enough

IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND SOMETHING and the other team doesn't point it out, depending on how egregious the lack of an extension is i still will not grant you access.i believe ghost extending just because the other team didn't point it out allows debaters to just equally not extend which i think is bad for debate. HOWEVER if your opponents don't extend/don't extend properly then PLEASE POINT IT OUT it makes everything 100 times easier.

PLEASE TIME YOUR SPEECHES. i hate timing speeches. i also don't stop people after they go over time so you should time your opponents to see if they go over time. i'm pretty generous with grace period so if you are afraid to be wrong from timer discrepancies, stop ur opponents at 10 over. i will not think worse of a debater for trying to keep time of their opponents and being wrong; it will not affect your speaks or my decision at all if you try to call your opponents time and you're wrong. please time each other.

i will time prep and let you know when people are over prep but i'm really bad at it so you should do it too.

I did PF at Westlake for 4 years and qualled for TOC 3 times kind of

email cheriewang835@gmail.com

send CASE AND REBUTTAL docs (to everyone preferably but if u and ur opponents don't decide to share cases just send to me). If i don’t get docs from you i’m giving 26s

judges r allowed to eval disclosure at TFA state so i will do that and u can see more info about disclosure below.

general things

idk the topic so clarify acronyms in speech and remember things i don’t understand aren’t evaluated as well and it is up to u to make me understand and eval them well

also speaks buff if u play a subway surfer video on ur computer for me during ur speeches it helps me flow better (u shld clarify what this means pre round so u don't do it wrong i would hate for u to waste ur time)

+.25 speaks buff every time u say “wow it’s sooooo preppy in here” when u finish taking prep

snacks are 30s (no starbucks)

no silly speaks buffs at tfa its not allowed sorry

tech>truth

don't go too fast; i can only evaluate what i can flow. if u go too fast (especially if i'm tired) could be ggs idk what to tell u. i will not pretend i heard stuff in rebuttal that was too fast for me just because the other team didn’t respond to it. for reference u should top out ~800-900 words in constructive and thats being pretty generous

i ask for docs but i'm not flowing off them that is not an excuse to go faster than i can handle and then get angry about the decision later

be nice or get 25s.

read whatever u want and i will do my best to evaluate it!

signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost

i do not flow things that aren't signposted. if there’s 100 different arguments and no one explains how they interact then they are basically meaningless to me

u r very welcome to post round either verbally after round (unless tournament is running super late then try to keep it short) or via email. i will not be mad education is great

random things

when u point out a lack of a warrant for something please also read a counter warrant or else it is not an effective response unless completely dropped!

if u read turns can u read impacts please

if u read turns can u read weighing please

if u read turns can they not be Your Case Pt. 2 But The Card Names Are Different please

hege args need real warrants too. for the one going around at state you should know that i hate the arg. won't intervene on it and have voted on it twice now but i do not like it. if u decide to read it anyway i will eval it like a normal arg i just want you to know that i hate it

i like analogies fine but not cliches (except for poking/feeding the bear i like that one. generally speaking i like bears)

above most other things i hate teams wasting my time and making me flow things that aren't useful. like i would rather hear analytics than random turns u won't go for or 8 pieces of ev that all say the same thing in rebuttal. weigh or make extra implications to pad ur time instead of reading useless ev.

do not waste both of our time by reading an overview if you are going to read it again as link level responses.

pf substance stuff

second rebuttal needs to frontline everything that they want to extend later. i would love to see some collapsing in this speech.

i have a decently high threshold for extensions but they don't need card names, just warrants and impacts. please don't go for more than one link/warrant when extending case if u don't have to.

i presume with my own coin flip unless told to do something else in round. i would love to be told to do something else in round. presuming with a coin flip is lame

warrant things

weigh things

extend things

SPARK AND OTHER IMPACT TURNS R AWESOME AND COOL BUT MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A LINK!

IMPACT DEFENSE IS HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED IN PF AND WE HAVE STARED TO ALLOW PPL TO READ THE WORST IMPACTS I'VE EVER HEARD CAN WE STOP PLEASE!!

because of something cale mccrary made me read i would also really enjoy seeing teams experiment with responding in second constructive but thats just a thought. im pretty sure no one will do this but if u do i will pad speaks for cool strategy

love a card heavy rebuttal (not as much as an analytics heavy one because that's so much cooler) but if i hear the same response with different cards a bunch of times i will dock speaks harshly for bad strategy. give a real rebuttal if i wanted to hear 5 pieces of evidence saying schools will cut sports programs i would read it myself.

progressive debate

i'll judge anything as best as i can

i love judging theory but that means when it's bad, i hate it a lot more than mid/bad substance. i will take mediocre substance over mediocre or bad theory any day. however do not be afraid to read theory in front of me if you are fairly new to it because i love seeing people experiment and learn about progressive/new argumentation more than i hate hearing a bad theory round.

theory is great including friv but if u r being funky, u must also be fun. otherwise its just kinda terrible for everyone else and no one wants that especially not me (and u dont want that either because u won't like ur speaks)!

if u read friv and do a bad job at reading theory ill be mad cus why are u wasting my time and everyone else's

all parts of theory need to be extended in summary/final but not rebuttals (but if u want to make the argument that a rebuttal extension is necessary, go for it--it's just not my default). if u forget to extend something like DTD and they point it out u will probably not be winning off theory!

going for RVIs/DTA/reasonability are cool strats that i think are underutilized in pf!

im a big fan for os disclosure and am very open to hearing arguments for disclosure, os, misdisclosure whatever. obviously my opinion is that disclosure is good but i won't hack for it if u can't defend it. content/trigger warnings are good on graphic args but i won't hack for it if u can't defend that.

k's are out of my area of expertise so run at ur own risk--i don't mind hearing them and i'll try my best to eval but idk the big words. on top of that speed will absolutely make my brain fold in on itself and implode. if u want to read one u should probably gauge my experience w them and talk to me before round

i need a lot of judge instruction and a minimal amount of buzzwords for k's (as in i will not understand buzzwords and need full explanation in their place). personally im by far the most familiar with cap but every time i learned about wrote or debated k, all the knowledge went in one ear and out the other in like a week

again, BE NICE. especially if ur reading progressive args on novices.

Sophia Wang Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 10:42 AM CDT

Email chain: sophiaw1128@gmail.com

I did PF for four years, coached since graduating

flay --------> me ----------------------> ultra tech policy judge

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter

Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presume first

Strike Guide:

Link spamming (10> in a case) and dumping frivolous progressive args will only hurt you

Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = L20. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than a 25

Tech:

I judge substance better than I judge prog, keep that in mind, that being said -

Things that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Stock Ks, most frameworks ran in pf

Theory:

CI>R, DTA, no RVIs, text by default but up for debate

Should be read immediately after violation, depending on the situation (experience level, impromptu theory) I am OK with forgetting to extend interp or violation if there are no responses on it. Standards and voters need to be in every speech.

In messy theory debates with multiple shells involved. You must weigh in order to prevent me from intervening.

You can paraphrase or not disclose as long as you respond well to their respective shells. I don't mandate either nor am I biased towards those particular standards. I will also evaluate things like theory bad if you win it on the flow.

Important: I will judge Ks using the mechanisms that doing pf has given me. Do not expect me to understand policy jargon or know how to implicate your literature properly. You know your own K best, so if you're going to real Ks please spend enough time telling me exactly how you want me to evaluate it. Otherwise it'll just be an uninformed ballot.

I am most familiar with stock Ks: fem, cap/sec etc, so if you're reading more niche K make sure to be extra diligent about implicating it.

Shells almost always uplayers the K, so you need to read counterinterp of respond to shells read, just weighing may not be enough (again depends on the K)

Things that I am not familiar with:

T, Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy

pls no

Speed:

Send doc

Speaks:

Speaks are given based on strategy/content instead of rhetoric/fluency. I give 30s. My baseline is 28. I rarely go below that.

Speeches:

Constructive:

Just be clear, I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted

Rebuttals:

If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but fine), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns. Second rebuttal should frontline. if your opponents bring up weighing in first rebuttal it is okay to not address it until summary. I don't evaluate "no warrant" responses unless you give me counter-warranting, link weighing, or some degree of implication.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky and needs to be in every speech. That being said, the extent to which I'll tolerate blippy extensions is directly inverse to how much ink your opponent puts on said thing you're extending. At the minimum, I need link + Impact + implication.

Final Focus:

Be smart with ff strategy, easiest way to win me over as a judge.

Interact, weigh, go for the right things

Feel free to postround, it is good and educational. But please only do so if the round ends before 10pm, otherwise just email me

Sanjitha Yedavalli Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 29, 2024 at 10:00 AM CDT

hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.

1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

2. PLEASE signpost.

3. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.

4. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.

5. I try to flow all the card names but I usually just end up flowing the argument only. That being said, don't extend by saying "extend the Smith card", you will need to repeat the actual argument.

6. I'm fine with speed. if you think it's going to be rlly fast, just send me your speech doc before just so we avoid any issues

Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.

Theory: I will probably never vote off of it because I do not understand it well enough.

Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to the lit. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. Clearly explain why this matters and why I should be voting off of it. Also highly unlikely that I will vote off of it.

Structural Violence Frameworks/Args: Don't read structural violence arguments without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists. I do not accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this. Warranting is key. Do not assume my political views because of my looks. Don't use the oppression of others as a tactic to win a debate round. I will call you out if I sense any bs.

I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.

Please make crossfire bearable. I don't want to be falling asleep so use humor or be aggressive (but not too aggressive to the point where you're just being a dick)

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round begins.

If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at sanjitha.y@gmail.com

Hui Zhang The Awty International School 1 rounds

Austin Zhao The Awty International School 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

TFA State 2024

2024 — Houston, TX/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges