YO FELLAS!!! It's me, Julian!

I'm hecka ready to do some judging, so let's get this show on the road.

I have 3 years of middle school congress experience, and I octafinaled nationals back in seventh grade; essentially, I know a thing or two.

My favorite band is eminem.

My highschool experience is unremarkable. I had a negative growth rate, going 3-3 at TFA State freshman year and 2-4 Sophomore year, so I quit debate and became a judge.

Strake Jesuit ‘26

Feel free to ask any questions, I'll do my best to evaluate the arguments you make.

Worlds:

Do what you know how to do and do your best at it :D We're all here to grow and I hope this activity helps us. I hope you have fun and we have productive rounds.

I've never debated World Schools but I've watched a few rounds- treat me as if I have some basic understanding but am not familiar with all the norms.

I'm probably going to evaluate the round from a little more technical point of view but I'm still going to be a lot more "lay" for World Schools.

General:

Give at least 30-35 seconds before each POI.

For MS, 30 sec protected time at the start and end of each speech.

I think the reply speech is the most important speech in the round- It's what I'm going to be looking at first and foremost as my reasons to vote for you.

Postrounding is okay but I will not change my ballot- I think it's educational for you to understand my thought process and holds me accountable as a judge.

Content v Strategy:

Strategy is most likely what's going to decide the round for me, smart responses that help you win a lot cleaner on the flow are going to be my reasons to vote for you. However, I do think the presentation matters in World Schools so it's still a balance of the 2.

Content

I'll boost your speaks for filling up the speech time and keeping the round in order, it makes the round super enjoyable as a judge.

I'll give more leniency on content points in rounds where you learn the topic right before.

Good weighing can easily you the round and will boost your points for strategy and content.

Style:

+1 point if you signpost clearly

Don't yell

-1 point for every extra POI if you spam POI's(no more than 7 POI's a speech)

style points start from 27 going up or down from there depending on how you do.

Being funny will boost your style points, making the round enjoyable makes me happy.

Strategy:

This is where I'll give points based on how you're doing on the "flow" and if you're technically winning arguments- This is most likely where I’ll vote off as well combined with content.

Clever strategies like cases with spikes in them will boost this of course.

Public Forum

Tech > Truth

Send a speech doc before Case and Rebuttal.

Speed is fine, but it needs to be somewhat coherent.

If it is not extended I will not vote off of it.

Prep ends, when you finish compiling the doc.

+.5 Speaks If you’re not in a suit.

You should probably give a Content Warning if your speech is super graphic

Truth breaks clash if no one breaks it for me. ( but break if for me )

Larp

Defense isn’t sticky, 2nd Rebuttal must frontline.

New (not intuitive) implications Second Summary onwards won’t be evaluated.

Implicate what you say.

Turns w/o Uniqueness and Weighing are defense.

Flex Prep is allowed.

Open Cross isn’t.

I like Unique arguments.

I won’t hack on evidence, unless told to check and it’s egregious.

Weighing: Strength of Link isn’t real weighing, probability needs to be super well implicated

Good weighing wins rounds, make it comparative and link weigh please.

Weighing is fine all the way into the 1FF, but speech after can always respond

Weigh as early as possible, like 1st Rebuttal early. Please.

Link-In’s, Short Circuits, prereqs, etc. need timeframe weighing, or else it doesn’t matter (unless it’s like really really intuitive ig).

Speaks:

Speaks start at a 29 going up or down from there.

If you lose reading tricks it's an L25.

Progressive:

You don’t have to extend Theory, Framing, trix, or a K in rebuttal.

Discourse is NOT an impact on anything- You will have to weigh it like crazy cracked or smthn

Framing:

I default Util.

Framework should be read in constructive.

SV should actually be SV, not [x] minority isn’t prioritized often, or util but prioritize [x] minority more.

I can probably understand Phil, but err on over-explanation. Not kant tho

Cost-Benefit Analysis is not a real framework.

Pre-Fiat Frameworks are… stupid

Interesting Frameworks are really cool and underutilized, things like Anthro, Polls etc.

Theory:

I default CI’s> Reasonability, DTD, Text > Spirit, No RVI’s.

^ All of the above can be changed through paradigm issues.

Friv is fine.

I think certain norms are good, but I refuse to hack for them I won’t evaluate Theory incoherent, dumping on a procedural claim is very much so problematic.

Kritiks:

Err on over-explanation.

Understand the authors you read, Please. It’s obvious when you don’t, and I’ll probably dock your speaks for it.

Topicality is a fine response; It needs a definition though.

Kritiks must have REAL Alts- discourse doesn't do anything and I really don't think anything could convince me otherwise.

Trix:

shouldn’t be too complicated/have too many layers.

They shouldn’t be bracketed inside evidence.

They should be in the doc.

I think David Kennedy's paradigm adequately sums up my thoughts on this whole "judging" thing

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.

PF

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.

Ks

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.

Debate PF at Strake 2021-2025 - please add me to the doc: guodaniel3@gmail.com

For MSTOC LD:

Do what you do best - go as fast as you want and be respectful, kind, and fun!

Policy - 1

K - 2

Theory/T - 2/3

Phil - 5

Tricks - 5

I debate PF so err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T. Not good for high phil/extremely uncommon K. Please don't overadapt to me if it's a panel - just do what you do best!

PF:

Tech> Truth, go as fast as you want and read whatever you want.

Cleanest link into best weighed offense, but arguments must have coherent extensions - uniqueness, link, impact.

Impact Calc and Backhalf Thoughts: (Stolen from Ishan's Paradigm)

I assess probability largely based on if you are winning your argument. However, arguments don't necessarily start at 100%. You establish probability through evidence and explanation. Probability matters, especially when magnitudes are similar (e.g., extinction). If probability weighing becomes new defense, call it out.

Extensions are yes/no. Extend, definitely, but I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. If something is conceded, my threshold drops significantly. Nit-picky details become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically,there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.

Link turns without uniqueness are defense. Uniqueness responses can zero a turn's offense, but remember that the "turn" then becomes defense. Even then, generally speaking,link > uniqueness.

By default,I presume neg/con.

Not good for PF K's w/o alts, poor evidence ethics, or any sort of -isms

Hi I’m Campbell

Do your best :)

Hi! I’m Finney a rising senior at Strake Jesuit, been doing pf ever since freshman year.

Add me to the email chain: FGHaire25@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tldr: tech>truth, tabula rasa. Read what you want but I can’t guarantee I will be able to understand it. The quickest way to my ballot is good weighing and defense. Fine with speed as long as you send a doc with cut cards and you must go slow on analytics. Defense isn’t sticky. Quality>quantity. The best rounds are ones where I don’t have to think about my decision. In the back half, write my ballot for me. Be very clear with signposting. I prefer a substance debate with good clash but I won't stop you from doing what you want.

Comments and opinions

It is the judge’s job to do their best to adapt to the debaters but with that being said I do feel more confident judging straight topical rounds. That’s what I feel the best at evaluating but I am willing to judge whatever including ks theory and whatever you can come up with.

Every single thing you read or go for needs warranting. The warranting doesn’t have to be true but if there is no warrant then you’re just saying nothing and I will not vote for it. Threshold for warrants goes down if something is fully dropped or the flow is supper messy.

I will always look at the weighing first to see who’s winning that and then look at who’s winning links. I love love love link weighing, meta weighing, uniqueness weighing, and any other weird weighing mechanisms.

The only thing that can be new after summary is weighing. I will evaluate new weighing in second final if it’s the first time weighing is read. If your opponents try to read new defense and call it probability weighing then call them out and I won’t vote on it.

Most probable implementation of the resolution isn’t real. It’s just excuse to read a plan in pf and I will evaluate it if your not called out for it but like…

Pf has really bad evidence ethics. Call out your opponents for terribly miss cut cards and if I think it’s bad enough I will just scratch them from my flow.

Being able to show cut cards quickly is a must. If you hold up the round for over 3 minutes trying to find a card I will doc your speaks.

I’ll flow off a doc if I really need to. I would greatly prefer not to and there’s a decent chance my flow will be a little worse. You also probably don't need to go that fast.

Theory

I have an okay amount of experience with it and know how to evaluate it.

Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I can be convinced otherwise. Default yes RVIs.

Ks

Not very much experience tbh but do what you want. If I look confused it’s because I am. Slow down on extensions and over-explain the k if you want me to make the best decision possible.

speaks

Start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy and if you seem nice or funny. If you are spreading at a completely unintelligible speed to the point where it’s almost impossible to prove if u clipped, I will prob drop your speaks. If you do really annoying stuff like read theory on freshman or counter plans in 2nd rebuttal that are just new contentions, I will vote for them sure but expect a low point win.

racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. is an auto L and the lowest speaks I can give.

ask questions and post round if you want.

Good luck!

Strake Jesuit PF

add me to your email chain: KHarpavat27@mail.strakejesuit.org

General:

Try to give a roadmap.

Don't yell in cross, especially grand.

5 second grace if overtime

I'm good with post-rounding idc; it's educational.

Substance:

Tech > Truth, I'll evaluate any argument as long as it's explained clearly throughout every speech. Make sure to extend!

Weighing comes first.

Speaks:

Clear Signposting + 0.5 speaks

All speaks start off at 27 (unless you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

Ask me anything if you have questions, and I will be happy to answer.

Be calm and respectful, and have fun!

strake debater

have fun and do whatever

put me on the email chain-sjhasan27@mail.strakejesuit.org

I will vote on areas of resolved clash rather than resolving clash myself, unless I have to. I am not concerned with speaking. So long as you are clear, I will give speaks based on strategy. I have some experience with progressive debate. I am comfortable with theory, having run it a decent number of times. Friv theory is fine, but if read against novices or teams that clearly don't know how to respond to theory I may drop speaks but will still evaluate it. I'm more uncertain on Ks. Read them if you want and I'll try to evaluate it, but I can't guarantee I will do so correctly. I am familiar with securitization and kind of familiar with rage alts. I dislike discourse alts, so make sure that you actually win the alt if you go for one.

Collapsing is good. You should not go for multiple contentions unless they are easy to frontline and quick to extend.

Rebuttals can be blippy if you implicate well in the back half. Tech over truth for all responses.

Good weighing gives you a massive advantage if you have any access to your case. Please do link weighing--it is the easiest path to the ballot. If weighing is very blippy on both sides with little comparison, I will go truth over tech to break clash if there is no other way to evaluate the round.

Speaking faster than 250 wpm is a risk if I don't have a speech doc. If you go above 300, please give clear extensions in the back half.

Email chains are good. If you are using them or speech docs, add me to them. LAHolmes25@mail.strakejesuit.org

I will only look at evidence if a team tells me to, or if there is heavy unresolved debate over it at the end of the round.

Read tricks if you want but implicate clearly in the back half. If both teams read tricks, I'll give both teams 30s. If only one team reads tricks, the team that read tricks loses speaks. I have a low threshold for responses if only one team reads tricks.

In egregious cases, I will intervene to evaluate inclusion over tech.

i debate for strake.

cross is not flowed and i will use the time to write feedback :)

grand cross is not a playground, so keep it civilized.

signposting is a must; don't leave me with a messy flow.

please extend.

Stolen from Sumith Murthy’s paradigm:

Here are a few things you can do to win my ballot

In summary and final focus you should,

• extend your arguments in the summary and final focus speech (and collapse)
• defend your arguments
• compare impacts and explain why yours is better even if they are winning theirs (comparative weighing)
• attack their arguments

Doing all of these things will make it really easy for me to vote for the debater who should win

most importantly have fun and debate however is most comfortable for you :)

Strake Jesuit PF Freshman, 2 years debating

add me to your email chain: ttkirichenko27@mail.strakejesuit.org

PF:

General:

Try and give a roadmap

Don't yell in cross, especially grand.

10 second grace if overtime

I'm good with postrounding idc

Substance:

Tech > Truth, I'll evaluate any argument as long as it's explained clearly throughout every speech

Weighing comes first.

No new arguments past 2nd summary

EXTEND

Speaks:

Clear Signposting + 0.5 speaks

All speaks start from 27

Misc:

If everyone agrees you can have open cross, or we can skip grand for one minute of prep

Strake Jesuit PF Debater

email chains are cool: rqli26@mail.strakejesuit.org

check out the debate hotline on Instagram, very good organization in promoting a better debate space, highly recommend

This paradigm's pretty empty, don't be afraid to ask more in-depth questions before round

Speaks

Any tournament: Any good pop culture reference (I might not catch it tho) that is naturalin speech (don't force it) gets my utmost respect and gets 30 speaks.

If you tell me a good joke before round you also get a 30.

For team events, this is not applied to the whole team.

In person: Bring me anything from the concession stand and the whole team gets 30 speaks

Online: Show me your pet on camera (preferably a cat) and I will give everyone in the round 30 speaks

General

Don't yell during cross and especially not grand cross T_T

Debate is just a game at the end of the day. Everyone's a nerd, so don't take anything too serious

I look to weighing first

If spread please send doc. Send doc just in general tbh

Signposting is a must and a roadmap would be helpful

10 second grace period overtime. I won't flow during grace, but if you keep talking after that speaks will plummet. 10 should be more than enough time to wrap up, anything more than that is absurd.

Substance

Tech>Truth, but if your tech argument is absolutely ridiculous, the threshold of responses will not be high. At least try to make realistic scenarios.

Theory

Go for it, but friv shells=low threshold

Default yes RVI's

Try to avoid theory, contact your opponents before round please

If I know a team's coach does not allow for disclosure, I will not vote on the shell. I know the struggle of having a strict coach and hitting a disclo shell every round for something out of your control is not cool. I trust you, please don't lie. Disclosure is a good norm, so do it if you can.

Kritiks

Run at your own risk

I'm not afraid to vote on it if you're cooking, but you will have to be winning very clearly, not a big K fan.

Tricks

My threshold for responses is breathing

Misc

All speaks will be above 28 unless you do something very bad (racism, sexism, etc.) tbh just do one of the things mentioned above for 30's

Treat your opponents with respect, I will drop you if you are a terrible person, even if you are winning. There's a fine line between confident/aggressive/hostile, and aggression will get your speaks dropped at the least.

If everyone agrees we can skip grand cross for an extra minute of prep

Sophomore at Strake

1 yr debate experience in PF

For No Limits, i have very little topic knowledge, so explain everything

Add me to the chain: smagon27@mail.strakejesuit.org

General

Speaks start at 28, go higher or lower based on how clearly you speak, signposting will also increase speaks

I'll judge tech over truth, but if the debate is close on the tech then i will look to truth

Explain your evidence, don't just throw random cards at me

Slow down on taglines and analytics

Evidence

Send docs if you are reading >250, i won't flow off a doc, if i can't understand what you are saying i won't evaluate it

Take prep when calling for evidence (only when you are reading the evidence)

If it takes you more than 20 seconds to find a piece of evidence, you can either drop it or take part of your prep

For evidence clash, explain why your evidence should be preferred (Don't just tell me its newer)

During Speeches

Extend in Summary and Final or i won't vote for you

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline

Weighing no later than first final

No arguing in cross

Joshua Martinez (they/them).

Debated for Strake Jesuit for 4 years.

For email chains/questions - JEMartinez.docu@gmail.com

General

don't care what you wear or how you present in round.

speaks start out at 29.5 and move up and down by 0.1 as a scale; however, if you have an ego, I will drastically drop your speaks, passion is nice, being obnoxious isnt.

racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia have no place in debate. you get an L + 20. don’t misgender your opponents if they have pronouns disclosed

ask me questions after round, pick my brain, I encourage it. If you leave round frustrated, ask me about it. Respect me as a person who makes mistakes but stand by your convictions.

Debate is a competition but not a game, this means that how we think about the debate space matters and the knowledge produced from it is important and should be evaluated. epistemological arguments carry a lot of weight with me and I’d like to vote on them, whether they be framework/post or pre-fiat because how we think has material consequences for people. Thus–

The bastardization of evidence is antithetical to actually learning something from the debate space.

I have very little patience for bad debate evidence: if a card is obviously miscut, your opponents are lying about evidence or intentionally misconstrued it. Feel free to stake the round on an evidence challenge, I will vote for them. If you think your evidence isnt cut properly, fix it before round or dont read it.

read content warnings, if you aren’t sure if something requires a content warning, read one anyways.

Background.

I did debate all four years in high school for Strake Jesuit in Public Forum. I did okay, qualified to TOC, qualified to TFA state 3 years, and got to quarters one time.

I have an academic interest in critical theory both inside and outside of college. I loved doing K debate my senior year, and read queer/anti-capitalist/asian k ground with my partner. I am most familiar with Butler, Marx/Engels, Said and basic phil stuff alonside a limited engagement with critical race theory/anti-colonial/imperialist lit that ive picked up here and there.

My exposure to critical args was from reading first, debate second, meaning that I would appreciate more work from debaters in translating everything into the debate space, if you show an actual interest and seem knowledgeable in the lit bases you draw from, I will want to vote for you.

Substance/LARP/Topical Debate (PF/LD)

Tech over Truth.

Good substance rounds are amazing to watch.

Decent Flow Judge, not the best with speed tbh, if you think its going to be a problem then send me a doc, I would really appreciate it, but I don't really think they solve, err on the side of caution. Faster than 250wpms is fine if you slow down for important stuff.

Evidence without implication to the round/specific arguments is meaningless. Slowing down for implications and analytics is very nice.

If you care about the ballot, then please signpost, be safe than sorry. If I get lost, it will take my ~10 seconds to get back on track and I will not be flowing.

I appreciate good strategy sooooo much. I’ll outline what I consider good strategy.

1. Comparative Weighing is an absolute must for me, it should be smartly contextualized in round. Link level, impact level, meta-weighing, policy maker stuff, uniqueness weighing, actor analysis, SOMETHING.

2. Evidence comparisons are a godsend and will break clash for me on the flow. If you have good evidence, lord it over your opponents, it makes the round so much easier to vote on.

3. Easily differentiated warrants and implications for responding to your opponents, using evidence from constructive to frontline, nuanced case offense, and smart extensions that do more than just extend.

4. Overviews are nice, they just get spammed a lot in Public Forum.

I prefer arguments that have a good amount of work on them. My willingness to believe defense is predicated on the strength of the original response, if a 5-second blippy turn is met with a similar 5-second frontline, I buy the frontline. If that very same turn is to be massively blown up in the back-half, I am less likely to buy the defense/turn over the original and well-warranted case offense.

For this reason, concessions aren’t sacred. If a team can cross-ap defense from something very similar to beat-back a “conceded turn” then I am willing to consider it frontlined.

I appreciate voting on strategy and being smart, not doc botting 30 responses from the 600-page exclusive block file compiled from circuit connections.

Ishan Dubey was on my team, his rounds were enjoyable to watch, not just because he was a good tech debater, but because he was strategic, he grouped responses, weighed to beat back timeskews, he framed ballots for the judges. Be like Ishan, I like Ishan.

Additional Information.

• Hidden links are stupid, hiding blips that concede arguments honestly seems ableist.

• Defence is sticky in PF, but not in LD due to speech time differences.

• I don’t know the topic as well as you do, abbreviations for long terms should be explained at least once.

• PLEASE have speech docs prepared and evidence ready, I will doc speaks for holding up the round, not for wifi issues. I hate not being on time. Pre-flow preferably outside of round if you can.

Theory, Kritiks, and Framework Debate

“Progressive” for all the PF people

Tricks arent in the title for a reason, don’t read them

CUT GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THEORY, K’s, AND FRAMEWORK. There is an infinite amount of material to comb through, it exists, and I know it does.

Evidence ethics is incredibly important. Please actually read your evidence, if you point out incredibly lazy K evidence, it will be a place for me to sign my ballot.

Personal Bias

• Queer Pess arguments are extremely poorly understood in the debate space, I have lots of personal gripes against Edelmen. Run at your own risk, ill try to make it not inform my ballot.

• death-good is something I really don’t want to vote for.

Theory

My threshold for responses against theory is directly proportional to how friv I think it is.

Don't attempt to skew your opponents out of the round by reading 5 god awful interps, if you actually care about norms then there should be sufficient time to actually debate them. If this happens, make it a response and I will vote on it.

• I default competing intercepts.

• Will default to no RVI’s unless contested.

• K v. Theory, I default to the K if the theory of power is conceded, either a. Contest the theory of power or b. Weigh the shell against the rotb/ToP and interact in the speech its introduced.

• In Theory v. Theory, please metaweigh, I have a low threshold for voters, I don’t believe not disclosing will collapse the activity. Compare the actual impacts to break clash.

• I wont autodown theory except for:

• I won’t vote on disclosure against identity args

• Content warnings bad

• Any form of counter interp against misgendering/deadnaming

PF: Structure your shells like a normal pf shell: interp, violation, standard, voters, underview

LD: My evalutation of a “god awful interp” is much higher in LD because I am less familiar with the material. I am aware that theory covers more ground than in PF and won’t autodown anything, be sure to implicate and slow down on frontlines/backhalf of the round more than you normally would so I can follow along. Err on the side of caution.

Kritiks

Tldr: overexplain.

I really really want to vote on a K, but I am not a K hack. Please actually know your authors, your advocacy, and what your evidence says. If I think you just stole your k off the wiki with no clue what is says, I will down you. In cross, if you are struggling to answer softball questions like “whats your alt” or “whats capitalism”, I really don’t want to vote for you and have a much much lower threshold for responses.

If you decide to read progressive stuff and your opponents obviously have no clue what to do, DO NOT be abusive. Depending on the severity, will either drop your speaks or down you.

If you don’t know what a K is and your opponents are reading it against you: read their evidence, have them explain their evidence, ask them basic questions, and turn it into a response. I will vote on it if they can’t answer.

Nuanced links for any K is highly recommended. I’ll vote on generic K links but my threshold for responses is lower against them.

K ground questioning knowledge production/epistemology is something i have a real soft spot for if done well. Explain why current IR/militarism/policy-making is flawed with good warrants and your fine.

Please flesh out the Alt and overexplain the material, winning on the flow matter less if I am just completely clueless on what the K actually does. Implicate out to your opponent's case and take the time to explain why it turns case, limits offence, impact filter, etc.

Extend the Alt in every speech and flesh out how and why you have offense in the round. If your getting offense from something else, make that clear and tell me to disregard the alt.

Performative offense is great, ill vote on conceded performative offense if properly explained

I am a big fan of KvK debate.

K ground I know nothing about, if you decide to read, treat me like child

High Phil. Affo Pess/Futurism. Kant. Border K’s. Psychoanalysis.

PF:

Most PF k’s are god awful, read T if your opponents have a really bad K and I will probably vote for you.

You need an alt. Discourse isn’t an alt. The alt is probably the most important part of the K and it needs to be decent for me to vote for you.

Your cards should be long, with actual warranting in your evidence any card with 20 words highlighted is not K evidence.

If you are going to read fem, please please please cut very good fem evidence or just make it framework. Most of the fem k’s on the circuit I have massive problems with for simplifying critical literature and turning them into “vote fem team to center women”.

Read a queer counter k for me and I will have a very very strong preference to vote for you. I love love judith butler, I’ve annotated my copy of Gender Trouble, queer theory is my lifeblood, if you have no clue what any of that is, probably read substance instead.

LD:

Err on the side of caution when you're figuring out what I can evaluate. If you can, read the more basic version of something if you have it.

I like topical k affs. Nontopical k’s I have a harder time understanding.

Pick 2 pieces of offense at most to collapse on.

Go the extra step in extensions/frontlining.

FW [wip]

PF: use good evidence, implicate why your opponent's links/impacts are problematic under your fw.

LD: overexplain, please. I have very little exposure to LD fw.

Hi, i'm rehan, and i'm a junior at Strake Jesuit!

Competed on the NAT circ for the past year and a half

Add RMerchant25@mail.strakejesuit.org to the email chain!

Flow judge

Tech> Truth

Weigh as early as u can in the round so if there's a messy debate and im getting solid weighing early from one side i can vote on it.

You should frontline in second rebuttal defense ISN'T sticky

preflow before round

start the email chain before round if you can too

Please send cut cards!! No paraphrasing evidence and have good evidence ethics

You can go fast idc j send it in the email chain and slow on analytics so that way I can understand them

Theory

I am not super good with theory bc i don't debate it alot

I have read disclosure and paraphrasing

I believe people should disclose (open source) and not paraphrase

After round

I normally will start at a 28.5 and go up or down depending on how respectful you are and strats

I will disclose and give a verbal RFD

Good luck and have fun!!

Hi, I’m Sumith, a rising sophomore at Strake here are a few things you can do to win my ballot

In summary and final focus you should,

• extend your arguments in the summary and final focus speech
• defend your arguments
• compare impacts and explain why yours is better even if they are winning theirs
• attack their arguments

Doing all of these things will make it really easy for me to vote for the debater who should win

most importantly have fun and debate however is most comfortable for you :)

I think Mac Stratton's paradigm adequately sums up my thoughts on this whole "judging" thing

please extend

I think David Kennedy's paradigm adequately sums up my thoughts on this whole "judging" thing

i'm eliza (uh-lee-za) teo

golden rule:

be respectful, confident, and have fun!

i mainly do PF, starting info this year

theories... go for it ig, make it clear and easy to understand

that also goes for all of your speeches and cross, be clear. don't expect me to flow/evaluate things that you don't explain

⇒ warrant, link, impact!

⇒ extend!!

⇒ weigh!!!

i'll take time, but make sure to keep ur opponent in check (prep time too)

i don't flow cross

Strake Jesuit '25

did PF debate for 2 years

tech over truth

U can run theory, i dont rrly know how to evaluate Trixs and other rrly prog arguments.

Speaks-

i start at a 25 and go up and down from there, if i think u spoke rrly well u might even get a 27 !

if you do cross in a funny accent i will give u +1 speaker points

Strake Jesuit '26

I've done 2 years of PF debate

tech over truth

Don't run Theory or Ks, this is an educational, fun, and friendly camp tournament.

Speaks -

You start at 27 and I'll move you up or down from there.

For every pun you make, I'll give you +1 speaker point

Boston university 27

been a debater at strake for 4 years I was both a first and second speaker I have 3 gold bids so I'd like to think I'm decent at debate

email for if there's an email chain.

woturley23@mail.strakejesuit.org

I'm going to be more of a tech judge

defense isn't sticky extend it if you want it to be considered

you must extend all parts of your case/contention in summary and final

need to frontline in 2nd rebbutal

pls collapse the round will get too bogged down if you don't

pls pls pls pls pls pls pls pls do comparative weighing it controls what I look to first and is most likely your best shot to the ballot

turns don't matter if you don't implicate them or give them a impact

if y'all both agree to have a lay round I'll judge that way

you'll either get 30 speaks or 25 only way you get 25 if you're some form of ism ex racism or if you're rude to your opponents it'll get docked

I don't evaluate cross unless its brought up in speech

you can curse if you want

Tech>truth and debate is a game. Defense isn’t sticky (if they collapse in 2nd rebuttal, in summary, have to read one response for every dropped piece of offense) New weighing is ok in first final focus. If both teams have incomplete extensions, and one team has a much better one I vote for the team with the best. If it's pretty close or team is only missing like a very small thing in the extension, I'll just evaluate as if the extension is there. Add me to the email chain: navalencia23@mail.strakejesuit.org

Strake ‘23 | The London School of Economics ‘26

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine. If you spread, send me a speech doc.

If it is not extended I will not vote off of it.

New implications in 2nd summary / FF are pretty sketch and I am probably not willing to vote off of them.

Please weigh and signpost well. Probability, strength of link, clarity of link are not real weighing mechs. Probability weighing is literally just how conceded your arg is. UQ weighing > Link weighing > Impact weighing. No new weighing after 1st summary. Second rebuttal should collapse/weigh (also just a good general thing to do).

Try to resolve clash by doing warrant comparison. Weighing pieces of evidence against each other can be really strategic and make messy case debates look very clear.

Impact turns are underutilized in PF but are highly effective.

Evidence is overrated. Good analytics beat bad evidence. I will not intervene on bad evidence unless one team calls it out and explains why it is a voting issue.

You can call a TKO if you believe your opponents don't have any path to the ballot. The round stops and if you're right you get a W30 and if you're wrong you get a L20.

Progressive:

I think progressive args are good for pf.

Framing: Framework should be read in constructive. Second constructive MUST answer framework otherwise its conceded. When responding to framework, an alternative framing must be provided or I'll just default to whichever team introduced framing when evaluating impacts. I kinda understand some phil but its probably not a good idea to read it in front of me if you don’t explain and implicate it well.

Theory: I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Reasons to grant RVIs or default to reasonability can be persuasive if done correctly. I generally think disclosure of any identity based arguments is dumb and frankly pretty problematic. Please weigh theory over K or vice versa. If not, I generally (emphasis on generally) think k comes before theory.

Kritiks: I like k debate. Lit bases I’m more familiar with are Orientalism, Security, Imperialism, Set Col, Fem, Queer Theory, Cap, Afropes, and Critical Asian Lit, and a bit of Baudrillard and bioptx. I can probably judge other stuff but just slow down a bit. For context, I read a lot of Asian stuff and queer theory. Ks need a real alt and contextualized links.

Personally, I don't really think topicality is a good response to a kritk if given by itself. Reading topicality against a k Neg is pretty dumb in pf because the Neg does not need to be topical only refuse the aff. Also, when responding to a k, please for the love of all things holy, respond to the ROTB or provide your own.

"I am a freshman" or "I have never debated theory" etc. is not a response to progressive arguments.

Tricks: Trix are for kids

K's and Theory MUST be extended in rebuttal.

sticky defense is ok.

mhwalker27@mail.strakejesuit.org.

send speech doc

Strake Jesuit ‘26

ezwan26@mail.strakejesuit.org

Send docs with cut cards in email chains

i won’t look at evidence unless asked so no harm at sending

Debate is a game and you’re here to win - tech > truth

Absent warrants default neg on presumption and util fw

Absent warrants, every argument starts on the same layer -theory or k's don't uplayer for no reason and should be warranted out on why fairness or the k outweighs substance - rotb, fw, and weighing are used to uplayer. I will vote substance > theory if warranted. Absent warranting, whoever has the better link into the arg wins.

I will vote on any argument

I will attempt to do as little work for you as possible but all arguments must have a warrant and you must be able to explain it or I can't vote on it

Go as fast as you want - I can flow around 340 wpm as an upper limit on cards without a doc (but only if you’re really clear, I will say clear if you aren’t) Slower on analytics and tags go 250 wpm.I will yell clear if you’re incoherent

CX is binding but has to be brought up again

Weighing first then link level

0 risk exists, but only if implicated, 0 risk > weighing

Absent any weighing the least conceeded argument wins

Meta weigh it makes it easier to evaluate who’s winning but absent meta weighing order is, prereq > magnitude (if biggest impact is extinction else it goes above scope) > timeframe > short circuit > scope > probability

Probability is not real, it’s how conceded your argument are. Most of the time it's new defense and I won't buy that, empirical analysis is the closest to probability weighing

Extend your arguments - I wouldn't down someone for a bad extension, but I will down someone for no extension. However, the threshold of extensions increase if its what breaks clash or is pointed out by the opponents.

Prep ends when email is sent

Pref Sheet

LARP/Theory - 1

K - 1/2

T - 2

Phil - 4

PF:

Defense is not sticky

Extend in every speech starting in summary or else it’s dropped

No new weighing past 2nd summary

Framing should be introduced in constructive and can be responded to in constructive OR rebuttal

Theory and K’s don’t have to be extended in rebuttal

If you want to read a K:

1 - topical neg k's should be read if the aff links beforehand - otherwise the aff is allowed to skim around your link if they find a way and your k basically got no linked

2 - k’s on the neg should link to the aff

3 - non t affs probably should only be read if you are 1st aff - it's fine if you do but its a personal preference.

4 - the neg can’t read perms and the aff can’t read counterplans to the neg

I'll still eval it if you don't follow these rules but I'll be very sad

pls read plans/ctrplan

LD:

I know the general structure of how ld is supposed to work but don't know specific norms, see below to the arguments.

LARP

a good larp round is great - I can eval basically anything here.

err on explaination in counter plan debates - I don't have experience with how competition works.

The best ways to win is to explain everything

Theory

absent warrants, default ci, no rvi, and dta if it concerns an argument and dtd on others

no rvis by default moot any counter interp offense

you don't have to extend the interp word for word

I won't hack for a shell but personally I think that disclosure is good, para is bad, condo good, and tw's are not great

K

I don't have experience with hyper dense literature kritiks but understand most stock kritiks, just explain a little more than you normally do on complex k's and you should be fine

familiar with cap, security, Asian, setcol, disability, queer, psycho

Wont hack but tfw is probably 40/60 v. nont affs in a perfect world if you do it right.

err on overexplaination - I have to know what I’m voting on, this does not mean I will use prior knowledge to help you

for pf, pls read a real k

Minimum 29.7 if you read Mollow unless you do it bad

For PF look at the PF section regarding K's

T

err on explanation

I never had experience with T debates - read it if you want

Tricks - idc do it if you wanna, I will eval them

Phil

I don't know that much about it so ngl, unless its like simple or unless you give a bunch of explanation - this is like the one argument I have no idea whats happening

err on extreme hyper overexplaination - I do not understand Phil like at all

Speaks

Speaks are arbitrary, with that being said they’re the only thing I can control

Range is 25-30 (unless theres disrespect or something harmful) starting at a 29.8, speaks go up or down based how I think your strat is but generally shouldn’t be below a 28.5. The average is 29.4, if the round doesnt become really bad.

ngl I’ll give everyone a 30 if the round is enjoyable and not just another generic round

For a speaks boost. 1. Not being dumb, 2. Reading a counterplan or plan in pf, I’ll give you an above 29.5, 3. Sending cut cards verbatimized

ill disclose speaks if you ask

postround if you want + ask questions pre round

(bolded stuff is the td;lr)

Hey, I'm Winston!

I wanna be on the email chains wtwu26@mail.strakejesuit.org

I’m a sophmore at strake this my 2nd year debating

If I can't understand it I can't evaluate it

Tech>Truth,
Please have cut cards
Don't be mean or a bigot

If u have a question just ask

I can vote on anything that’s warranted

I'll vote off of any argument as long as it's warranted and extended through

(the threshold for resp to intrinsically harmful args i.e. death good, __-ist good, Xenophobia good, is pretty low...)

i may vote off of spiritualism k if u bring me a lemonade from Chick fil-A

I can handle speed(also abt 300wpm-ish flow b4 i start to blip a little)

if u go too fast i will yell "clear"

Open CX is fine, skipping gcx is fine, flex-prep is fine

Auto 30s, or slightly lower, I'll give speaks out mostly on strategy (20s/25s based on some exceptions below tho)

PLEASE EXTEND its the easiest path to the ballot

You should probably do these to be successful: (in this order preferably but doesn't matter)it makes evaluating pretty easy and clean, but I believe that no round is every fully clean ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Extend: re-explain ur main arguments (Claim, Warrant, Impact)

Frontline: Defend the main argument by responding to the opps response (or u can extend conceded offense and implicate that)

Weigh:

Basically just doing comparisons between your impacts and your opponent’s impacts

ill pref meta theory--> Prereqs--> Short Circuits/Link-Ins--> Probability/Linkweigh--> Timeframe--> Impact calc/Mag or Scope,

weighing is lowk the most important part of a round (Probability or clarity weighing is a little fake since its j basically "how much ur arg is conceded")

”we’re the best link into x impact” when both teams are going for the same impact is very underutilized in debate and I think it’s pretty good

Attack: Extend conceded defense (Turns, terminal defense, Impact defense,) and weigh/implicate as well

Weighing and attacking on the opp side of the flow are prolly the main paths to the ballot, double turns that you make on your flow or conceded case works as well

Going for turns is funny

Sticky defense is fake, extend the main offense ur going for thru summary and FF for me to eval

For New weighing and new responses, I'll give some leniency for them. It's okay in first/2nd final only if the opps made new weighing in 2nd summ/1st FF

Postround me if u want

Theory:

I can count the amount of actual theory rounds I’ve had on one hand and none of them have been very good

I can probably evaluate a theory round but I’m not the best judge

speaks will be lowered to ~28.5 if any theory arguments are read cuz I dislike judging these rounds

TKOs are fine but im not great at eval; if ur right and your opps have no path to the ballot, u get W30s, if ur wrong; L20s

Clipping is an L20

Hi! I'm Joy, currently debating for bellaire in pf

Debate however you want to. This can be a very intimidating activity, so just do your best! I don't want to inhibit your ability to debate at your best with specific nitpicks.

That being said, I will probably be better at evaluating the round fairly if you send speech docs, initiate clash, and weigh. Any complex arugments (dense ks, phil, etc.) should be dumbed down a lot for me.

I consider myself tech > truth. Speaker points will be based off of articulation and overall performance. Every argument made including extensions must have warranting. Please be efficient in sending cards.

Ask me anything else in round. Remember to be polite, try to make the round fun, and good luck! :)

ethan (he/him) - go follow the debate hotline !!!

pf paradigm
- tech>truth
- please signpost
- substance>prog
- please set up an email chain
- pleasepleasepleaseplease weigh, tell me which side to vote for
- default 1st speaking team

- if ur running high level prog arguments, you need to be able to PROPERLY EXPLAIN IT and answer my questions about it, im really stupid if I don't understand ur argument IM NOT VOTING FOR IT

other stuff
- idk that much about other events- treat me like a flay/lay
- auto 30s for any beyonce doja or kpop reference, +speaks if u make me laugh
- dont be exclusionary - no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc

dont take debate super seriously
"debate is a game" ok??? games are meant to be fun - dont take it too seriously

compete on the nat circ

put me on the email chain: jzhao25@mail.strakejesuit.org

feel free to reach out if u have questions

prefs

larp - 1

theory/kritiks - 2

k affs - 3

trix - 4

big picture stuff

tech > truth

debate is a game ill vote off anything with warrants

do anything u want as long as its not problematic i.e racist, homophobic, etc

collapse extend and weigh

speed fine but send doc

speed is a tool that should be used to explain things better and give them more breadth not to spam warrantless arguments but a good dump is always appreciated

weighing needs to be comparative and meta weighing or link weighing are good way to clear up the weighing debate

dont try to hide new defense as "probability weighing"

sol weighing is only relevant if the arg is conceded and u do meta weighing off of sol

link weighing > impact weighing

anything that isnt frontlined in second rebuttal is conceded

turns need to be implicated and weighed

cross doesnt matter to me

stuff in ff has to be in summary and needs an explicit extensions of unq link internal link and impact for anything u go for

default neg but u can make args for defaulting aff/neg or 1st/2nd

no new presumption warrants in ff

pls no off the clock roadmap just signpost

prog

fine w theory - dont need to extend interp/violation in rebuttal but the shell should be read in the speech after the violation

default to yes rvis competing interps and spirit over text

no rvis doesnt mean ur shell is a no risk offense issue - if someone wins a link turn on ur shell or that their ci is better u lose

if multiple shells are being read they need to be weighed against each other

paraphrasing is bad disclosure is good but it doesnt mean ill hack for those arguments

not well versed in more complex k lit like baudrillard but i have a good understanding of the stock stuff like cap, security, set col, etc so run at ur risk

try to make the k as accessible as possible so that a parent could understand

low threshold to responses to trix and dont hide them in tags