No Limits Tournament 2024
2024 — Houston, TX/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideYO 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 before/after round
I'll eval anything on the flow, the exception being ad-homs/callouts
Tech > Truth but I like truth
Pref Sheet
LARP - 1
K - 2
Non-T Aff - 2
T - 2
Theory -3
Phil - 4
Trix - 4
IVI's - 5
Send Speech docs with cards.
+.5 speaks for no suit
I do speaks off strategy and clarity
Non-T Affs-
i like these debates
know what you're reading
probably lean towards T being true but good debaters can debate through it
LARP-
implicate offense
i love metaweighing when done well
K-
Affs get to weigh the case against K's unless K team contests [which they should]
Try to make it accessible by explaining during cx etc.
understand what you're reading.
T/Theory-
default DTD, CI's >, no RVI's
i think these's debates get overdone and can be boring to judge but I'll still evaluate whatever. high threshold for what is "friv" and I'll still evaluate.
NO RVI's does not mean you cannot lose on the theory page. You can still lose to an OCI [or a "turn" to the shell if they choose to defend the converse of the shell]. Winning RVI's means that the team responding to theory can win off winning terminal defense on the theory page.
Phil-
Phil can be nice to judge err on overexplanation for more complicated things
Tricks-
have fun, if you lose reading them L 25
IVI's-
Don't read these unless it's so blatant that it's obvious they did something abhorrent. Read an actual shell, or if you like blippy reasons to vote for you, read tricks.
If I'm judging you in PF: bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com
I think David Kennedy's paradigm adequately sums up my thoughts on this whole "judging" thing
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
Add me to email chain - PMHablinski26@mail.strakejesuit.org
If this is for 2024, probably don't read progressive arguments on me unless it is general theory. Otherwise, I evaluate fairly standardly based on the flow.
Tech > Truth to an extent (ie my threshold for responses decreases as your argument gets more farfetched)
Speed - go whatever you want but be clear and DEF send a doc if above 250 (you should probably send one either way)
Substance -
- I evaluate in a tech manner
- Framing... prefiat is silly / I'll evaluate most framing arguments tho
- Second rebuttal should frontline or else the argument is conceded
- If you don't weigh you'll probably lose the round (strength of link isn't real and probability better be implicated very well)
- I'll evaluate whatever you give me but make sure to break the clash or else your argument is obv less easy to access
Progressive -
I'll evaluate most shells (think para, disclo, tw, and t) - I'd advise y'all against reading friv theory (if there is genuine abuse like misdisclosure y'all should probably read a shell if comfortable)
IVIs are generally ok if obvious but otherwise prob make it a shell
Evidence challenges are fine - just has to be on true grounds
Try not to read Ks on me - I'll probably screw you
Speaks -
+.5 if you weigh in rebuttal or attack in 2nd constructive
If you bring me food auto 30s unless... (see below)
If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, or overly rude I'll give you an L25
Auto 25 speaks if you're silver sumith
Hi I’m Campbell
Do your best :)
Hi! I’m Finney a 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. If u are going to fast in the back half if I don’t flow what you say then you were going to fast. You can spread a case extension only if you send a prewritten form of the extension you read, especially in k rounds.
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.
hello there.
For questions and the chain: omkaram26@mail.strakejesuit.org
Background:
I've competed at Strake Jesuit in PF for a little more than a year.
I am currently a Junior.
Tdlr: Flay leaning tech. I will eval as a tech, but remember that I debate PF.
- Speaks will be between 28-30 and will largely be determined by coherency and how generally how effective your speech is.
- However, any of the -isms, being rude, or absolutely atrocious debating will result in 20s.
General:
Tech>truth, but this is NOT an excuse to leave stuff under warranted.
Argument extensions must be coherent and must fully extend every part of the argument.
- If you don't know what extensions are, please ask me before round.
- If you point out a bad extension of the opps case: +.5 speaks.
Please also collapse. It's better for you in terms of round strat and me in terms of a decision.
Make sure to defend you arguments, attack their arguments, and compare impacts (weighing)
- bonus points if you compare your weighing to theirs [better known as meta weighing]
Turns must have uniqueness to be considered offense and must be weighed against the opps case if you want me to vote off them.
Progressive Fun:
- No prog on novices. Ask me before round if you want to read prog on someone who looks like a novice.
- Also, don't read if you are a novice. I will give you low speaks if you execute poorly.
Theory:
These debates often get very messy and can lack major comparative so they can be annoying to evaluate.
That being said, I will evaluate it. Yet, a some sort of a comparative is necessary otherwise you might not like the decision.
I default competing interps and no rvis.
Paraphrasing and bracketing bad, disclo good, but I will not hack.
Do not read frivolous theory.
(by friv I mean stuff like shoe theory, so you can read round reports or stuff like that.)
- If you could have contacted your opponents before round to solve any abuse yet didn't, I will actively be looking to hack against you.
-Please slow down on paradigm issues and the interpretation so I can actually flow it.
- Shell must be read speech after the violation.
- the interp/violation doesn't need to be extended in rebuttal.
Kritiks:
I am not the best judge to evaluate Kritiks.
But if you are confident that you can debate them well, coherently, and end up ahead on the flow, by all means go ahead.
That being said, due to speech times in PF, your backhalf will have to be very efficient as you must be able to give a good explanation to me and give good judge direction.
I am not confident in evaluating any kritiks with complex literature bases or deep phil bases, like Baudrillard, Deleuze or Psychoanalysis.
Common Kritiks like Cap, Setcol, Security, Imperalism, are all okay. I'm also familiar with Biopolitics.
- I will not use prior knowledge to inform my decision, however. You must know the literature well enough to explain it, apply it, and execute it in round.
Tricks:
Read these if you want L 20s.
Extra Things:
i will use cross to write feedback, but I will be listening occasionally.
Important: Cross (and the debate as a whole) is not a playground, and you also can't do anything you want (i.e.none of the -isms ). keep it civilized or negative speaks.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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 interps.
-
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 evaluation 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”.
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.
email RTrivedi25@mail.strakejesuit.org the word "Thence" for 30 speaks! Show reciepts!
Tech>Truth this is my 4th year of debate
Substance-1
- Spark :(
Theory-3 (I believe you should OS and not paraphrase)
K-4
Quick Rant
I am not very good with K's so I would recommend you run at your own risk. I feel like i j know a basic part of it and you should err on the side of over explanation.
These beliefs wont sway my decisions but like no k's have not done anything at least in my eyes. Partly because half of yall reading fem rage dont even believe in it. "We know were going to loose on substance so were reading this k to better our chances" This is literally what people say like what change are you making it this is what youre saying. Its so annoying to go into the round and people go like "The K is the reason why we can stay in the debate space" when its clearly not. I genuinely think K's don't do anything. Actually like some do and some dont but like i genuinely believe that Ks dont do alot . like please have an an at with specified actions. As stated like im not good with K's but i think of the alt as a link so like if you can explain a link with what happens and who does what and how it would help me so much with understanding the K.
Trix-5
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
For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com
I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and have coached there since.
General
In most debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth," though I dislike the distinction.
Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.
Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity. You may not "clear" your opponents.
I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand.
Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff still must make its way into a speech.
Flex prep is fine. However, I will not care if your opponents do not answer clarifying questions, especially if I thought they were clear.
By default, I presume for the status quo.
Evidence
Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.
Cards should be cut and have at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag"), relevant citations (including author qualifications), and the full paragraph you quote from.
Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not mandatory assuming there is clear verbal marking in-speech.
If you believe someone is violating the rules, stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I will not evaluate theory arguments about rule violations.
Avoid paraphrasing.
PF
I have a relatively high warrant threshold, especially for counterintuitive or nonobvious arguments.
Sounds analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.
Defense is not "sticky".
Second rebuttal must frontline.
Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am not nit-picky unless prompted.
Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.
1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.
Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. However, judge instruction is undervalued: tell me how to evaluate the round.
Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.
The Pro and Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.
I reward creativity and hard work. I do not look favorably upon laziness.
LD/CX
I have enough exposure to keep up.
Best for policy debates; fine for most else.
I am not a huge fan of pushing condo to its limits.
Text and function are probably good standards for competition.
Theory
I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and/or heavily semantical theory interpretations.
Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.
Ks
Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.
Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.
Any response strategy is fine. Good for Framework and Topicality.
Non-starters
Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.
Tricks.
Soliciting speaker points.
Misc
Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before the 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.
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 3 years
tech > truth
U can run theory, i dont rrly know how to evaluate other prog arguments.
Speaks-
Auto 30 if you email - rmerchant25@mail.strakejesuit.org "thence" and SHOW ME
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
if u bring me food auto 30s ... for further plz refer to rehan merchants paradigm i agree w him 100%
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
Tech > Truth - I will strictly default to arguments on the flow and refrain from injecting biases into the debate. I will not carve out exceptions for certain arguments. However, I do have more experience with certain arguments over others.
Comfortable with policy, k, theory, tricks. Overexplain with phil heavy frameworks as I am not fairly comfortable evaluating those.
Concessions don’t substitute mediocre extensions. Offense is generated and clash is broken off of depth of explanation.
Defaults
PnP negates
Yes judge kick
CI, No RVIs, DTD on condo and T, DTA on others.
metatheory > t = theory > everything else
(bolded stuff is the td;lr)
Hey I'm Winston!
I'd like to be on the email chainswtwu26@mail.strakejesuit.org
I’m a junior at strake and this my 3rd 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 and extended
I'll vote off of any argument as long as it's warranted and extended through
(the threshold for responses to intrinsically harmful args i.e. death good, __-ist good, Xenophobia good, is pretty low...)
I can handle speed (also past 250 words/min-ish and i start to blip a little)
if u go too fast i will say "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)
extending is 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 (Uniqueness, Link, IL, Impact)
Frontline: Defend ur main argument by responding to the opponents' responses (or u can extend conceded offense and implicate that)
Weigh:
Basically just doing comparisons between your impacts and your opponent’s impacts
ill pref pre-reqs/short circuits/link ins--> Timeframe--> Magnitude or Scope or Probability
true probability (if done right, aka actual analysis) could be pretty effective
weigh your linkweighing, since it's basically just another argument
weighing is lowk the most important part of a round (Probability or clarity of link/strength of link is a little fake since its just basically how conceded your argument is)
”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
metaweighing is underutilized in pf, esp try or die>timeframe or timeframe>try or die, "reject high magnitude impacts" could be effective but no one does it correctly
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/defense ur going for in summary and FF for me to eval
pls backline
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 for any type of round 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
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
big picture stuff
tech > truth
collapse extend and weigh -- debate is a game but just don't do anything that's problematic i.e racist, homophobic, etc
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 -- speed is fine but send doc and analytics
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" --link weighing > impact weighing
anything that isnt frontlined in second rebuttal is conceded
turns need to be implicated and weighed
default neg but u can make args otherwise
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 text > spirit
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
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