I'm Tyler Crivella, current freshman at UTD and former Seven Lakes High School ('24) competitor. I have competed in every event TFA offers except POI and DUO. Slay all day.

PFBC: I'm here to serve as a more traditional judge to test your adaptation. I'll clear you and I want to hear you try out lay debating.

Loud sounds, eating, chewing gum, sniffling, gaveling, and other sounds will down you. I have hearing disabilities and your articulation and reasonable (but not overbearing) projection are crucial to my participation. If I put headphones on, do not adjust to speak louder, it means you are too loud and you should likely adjust.

Extemp: I have a modern view on how extemp should be run but still a pretty basic rubric in most rounds. For higher level extemp, I prefer speeches to be both comedic and dramatic: doing both in a speech is a lot more skillful than just one. No layered analysis unless you really, really think it'll work. Priorities are as follows:
1. Answering the Question
2. Quality of the Points
3. Quality of Analysis (Including background)
4. Stucture and Fluency
5. Presentation
6. Number and Quality of Sources

Debate: Email chain, please: crivelladebate@gmail.com. Not the best at handling spreading online. Talk to me before round if you want me to say clear or something of that matter. I evaluate the round based on only arguments in the round. Your evidence means nothing to me without methodology or application. The warrant debate is something that I value more than most judges; still impact weigh but don't drop your delinks in the back half. I'm more than happy to vote for a K if the link is clear. You do you-- I'll vote for whatever you tell me.

Congress: If you PO, do not expect a free break. In a round of great speakers, you will be ranked under them even with perfect PO'ing. Do not gavel as PO or I will straight up kick you out of the room. POs should run the room: asking for splits if needed, moving things along rather than a representative. I prefer two point speeches but I can ride with one argument speeches too. Refutation is a must if you are not giving the first three speeches and even those one should have some. Questioning is not a screaming match. More speeches ≠ better speaker. The "PO" and "two speech" meta is bad. I would rather the round hit four bills with good, short, and dense debate than a prolonged, dead round after twelve speeches on each bill. AGDs, fluency, stance, and general speech skills do actually matter; it's not just the flow. Amendments are a dead medium that should make a resurgence. Bryce Piotrowski is a mentor that has a lot of ideas on this event that I agree with

Speech: Don't adapt your speech for me unless it's a concern of volume/sounds, in which case that is existential to your placement. I will do time signals and if I mess them up, you will not receive any retribution or penalty. I suggest you ask me about how time signals will be given and about how the structure of the round will go if you aren't sure. Be a good spectator; no phones and no leaving during speeches.

umich '27, debated 4 years for thomas s. wootton '23 on nat circuit, 2x gtoc

tldr:

speed ok, theory eh (see below if planning on running), tech > truth

start an email chain before round starts & add me: ruthdai077@gmail.com

please label said chain "tournament name, year, round, flight, team 1 code vs team 2 code"

in round:

preflow before round

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

i heavily prefer fw be extended in every speech but i won't hold it against u if you dont

spend more time explaining wonky args

if u spread: send speech docs (put in chain--don't put a locked doc). however, even w/ a doc u need to be clear for me to flow--i wont flow off the doc and/or double-check my flow with the doc for you

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

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

turns must be impacted out and implicated in rebuttal to be voted for. id also strongly strongly strongly prefer them to be weighed when introduced

i have a pretty low threshold for what i consider turns--but 10 word blips labeled as one wont be voted on

if you aren't using your opponents uniqueness for your turn, you have to introduce your own

defense is not sticky and must be implicated in every speech--i wont do it for you

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

i don't believe in uniqueness + probability + clarity of link/impact weighing but if its the only weighing i get ill evaluate it (the only time probability weighing exists is on the link level when the link chain is conceded. otherwise, it exclusively operates as defense)

comparative + meta weighing makes me happy

i default util framing in general & the squo in policy topics, otherwise, i default first (i am open to any alt presumption if this becomes a debate)

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

flex prep is fine

cross:

cross goes to the flow if brought up in next speech

chill w skipping grand for a min of prep

open cross is fine

evidence:

carded warranted ev > uncarded warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev

only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, for educational purposes, or just cause

i don't accept cards that aren't cut

miscut ev gets speaks dropped and is knocked off the flow

speaks:

based off strategy & speaking

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

give me a 1 page mla format letter of rec for you from any of my old partners for 30 speaks

evidence challenges:

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

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

prog:

in all honesty i started off on the traditional circuit and never fully adapted to new tech and am not great at evaluating progressive. that being said, its the judges obligation to adapt so read (so long as it is inclusive) what you want, just know my best attempt at an rfd will probably not make you super happy.

theory:

if i believe there's an actual violation that endangers people in the round, the shell doesn't matter to me atp, ill just down the team

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

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

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

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

don't read paraphrasing overviews, just run theory atp

things i wont evaluate:

- tricks

- tko's

- 30 speaks theory

- an identity k that does not apply to u but applies to ur opponents

out of round:

i will always disclose rfd (regardless of tourney rules) and im happy to disclose speaks, just ask

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

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

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

Hi! I'm a FYO from seven lakes.

Please put me on the email chain!! judijoyjeter@gmail.com

Please extend - if you want something to be a voting issue extend it in both final focus and summary

defense is not sticky

second rebuttal should frontline- even better if you collapse

please weigh your arguments comparatively

I look at the link debate first, then evaluate which arguments to prefer based on weighing

Please please signpost!!

My email is lorileiml@gmail.com please add me to the email chain! Don't be a terrible person!! Thank you

Winner of the 2023 Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest

Former Debater at University of Wyoming - I now debate at Baylor

K affs - should have a tie to the topic in some way, well explained affs are important - how do you solve x issue?

K - I think block dependency is high in these debates too - i want nuance arguments tell me why the aff is bad, on the aff side i want reasons the aff is good idea, other than that these debates are enjoyable to watch!!

Fw- Could go either way, i find myself in a bit of these debates where both sides just read their blocks at each other and don’t engage with the other person - i’ll reward someone who engages with the nuance of the arguments being made -- you can win a counter interp or an impact turn -- justify why you get to read FW - i’d rather vote for clash than fairness

Case- I love a good case debate. I think this part of debate is under utilized and can get good wins if you have a good case neg.

Da- Disad’s can take out an aff and I love turns case stuff. If you don’t know who switches their votes on a politics da that’s a little sad. you should explain the story of the da.

Cp- Counterplans are cool! Adv cp’s are not being used enough - a lot of people write affs that can be beat by a simple counter plan. Explain the process of the counter plan please :)

T- Im not a big fan of broad t definitions but I know they have to be used sometimes. T debates are also super messy so keep it clean. Tell me why them being untopical is bad. I haven’t judged a lot of T debates on this topic so explain it well.

Tech over truth :)

Clipping - I want video or recording otherwise this can be hard to verify unless i already know it’s happening

Other events- I enjoy judging other events besides policy! Please don’t worry about me being your judge I love all events of speech and debate and would love to learn more about them.

—College debater & policy debate captain @ Davis

—NDT Qualifier 2024

—Former Assistant Coach @ Sonoma Academy, graduated '22.

—Add me to the email chain: mateodebates@gmail.com

Background:

Did 4 years of debate at Sonoma, mostly went for Ks, qualled to TOC, coached for a year and coached mostly policy stuff, now lead UC Davis policy team.

General:

—Do whatever you're good at; I enjoy and am willing to judge nearly any type of round. I will likely vote for the team who is best able to isolate the central question of the round and explain why the arguments in the round mean they’ve won.

K + FW stuff:

—I have gone for the K in most of my debates. Specific Ks are always best, but read whatever you want.

—Link specificity is important, and will often win you the debate. My favorite K strategies are highly organized, structured, and specific.

—You can read K Affs in front of me. I ran K Affs throughout high school and now in college and wrote several dozen of them. Do whatever you want.

—I believe debate is a game with unique pedagogical values.

—Procedural fairness can be convincing to me if explained well with terminal impact calculus in the 2NR; however, I am more likely to vote on a model with limits and clash as the impacts

Hello! I'm Zach - which you probably know already since you clicked on this. Here are some things about me debate-wise:

General Stuff

• I'm chill with speed, just make sure to be clear
• Tech > Truth
• Email chain pls - especially if you are going fast: zachary.minter@yale.edu

Nice Stuff

• Signpost, things get lost pretty easily and that won't be good for you
• Weighing - I like it even more the earlier it's introduced.
• Extend arguments (especially defense) through the round, otherwise, I feel iffy about evaluating it
• I quite like well-thought-out analytics
• I also quite like evidence comparison

Bad Stuff

• Don't make ur arguments too blippy - flesh them out a bit to make them stick (make arguments don't regurgitate words)
• Don't bring up entirely new stuff in FF or 2nd Sum.
• Also, don't just blatantly lie about stuff (so feel free to challenge ev and wtv)
• You would be surprised that it needs to be said, but Utah debate was interesting: don't be misogynistic, homophobic, racist, Islamaphobic, etc... And if you have a certain... pattern of behavior, I will comment on it.

Courtesy Credit to Izzy Morris's paradigm which I basically plagiarized because I'm lazy

My Take:

• Debate really is just a game that young folks participate in and its pretty cool. So don't make crushing your opponents or showing everyone else how smart you are your main goal - and at the end of the day its not that deep.
• Feel free to ask me any questions about the round before we start, and feel free to come up to me with any questions or wtv after the round (both about life (and my pea-seized 18 year old world view) and about debate I suppose)

I debated in both PF and LD in high school and I'm an incoming freshman at Emory University

Add me to the email chain!! izzy.morris@emory.edu

General:

- tech > truth

- speed is fine, however, clarity>>wpm. I'll say clear if I can't understand you

- don't be mean/offensive. bad vibes = bad speaks

Some things I like to see:

- signpost because we both want that argument on my flow!

- weigh. the earlier the better, and warrant your weighing (also consider indulging in some metaweighing!)

- if you want something in my RFD, then it needs to be in summary and ff

- warranted evidence > warranted analytics > anything else

- challenge evidence, I'll happily evaluate

Some things I don't like to see:

- don't lie about evidence

- the blippier the argument, the less impact it'll have on my decision

- paraphrasing (and improperly cut cards in general) :(

- defense is lowk not sticky. extend or it didn't happen

Progressive args:

- I'm definitely not the most qualified person to judge a K/theory round, however, I'm not anti prog args and sometimes quite enjoy them! Run at your own risk haha

- don't run friv theory (pls?)

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

tom.jj.perret@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Tom - I debated PF at Park City on the national circuit for two years. Please respect your opponents, their pronouns, and the circumstances they might be debating in while online.

Overall, I'm a pretty standard tech judge: If Team A is winning a link to an impact and Team B is not, Team A is going to win. If both teams are winning a link to an impact, I look to the weighing.

General:

I'm flowing what you say, not what I read off of your doc; if I don't understand what you're saying and I flow it incorrectly, that is your fault. That being said, I can handle speed as long as it's clear.

I used to think that this goes with without saying, but recent debates force me to remind you that you need full link extensions in summary and final focus.

I struggle to understand probability weighing; if you've won a link to an impact, it is probable. Impacts that are actually improbable definitionally have tenuous links that are easy to answer analytically. As a result, please don't use your probability "weighing" as a chance to read defense in final focus when it should have just been formulated as a link response in rebuttal.

Weighing is not weighing unless it's comparative.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

I'm not going to call for evidence unless you tell me to.

Theory:

Read theory in the speech after the violation occurs.

You need to extend the interp and drop the debater.

I think that paraphrasing is bad and that disclosure is good, but I'm not going to hack for you if you've lost that debate on the flow.

I default to competing interps, but I'm open to well-warranted explanations of the benefits of reasonability.

Critical Arguments:

I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of k debate, but I am familiar with some critical theory and am open to hearing well-warranted arguments.

I read a good amount of post-fiat structural violence framing in high school.

I will cap your speaks at 27 if you read tricks.

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

polahs & lamdl '22

liberty '25

i debated for 4 years in an urban debate league (yes we know how to debate)

micheladebate@gmail.com

top level:

TURN YOUR CAMERA ON I am not listening to a debate podcast

give roadmap, signpost, have clash, make me laugh

S L O W D O W N on analytics my hand is slow

if you run more than 5 off I will dock your speaks

I cannot hear that well so if youre mumbling im not flowing that arg

dont spread blocks at me I need round contextualization

I vote on theory I think it's important

I make lots of facial expressions... they're a good indicator of how well you're doing

I need judge instruction tbh im lazy (you should do this for every judge anyways)

if you make someone uncomfortable im docking your speaks and giving that person higher speaks (being in a round where that has happened to be several times I am very sympathetic)

please make cx funny

don't steal prep bruh it's not that serious

ngl I can barely keep up with my own time in round so im def not gonna keep it as the judge. but if you seem sus with the time imma call you out

policy (cx):

~ depth over breadth so if you run a bunch of offs please explain them thoroughly bc I get annoyed having to flow a bunch of offs that get kicked in the block as a "strategy" but it really just makes the debate messy and no one knows what they're talking about

~ long overviews are a waste of time

~ saying kritiks are bad for debate will never be a good "arg" in front of me. get with the times. your model of debate is bad.

~ case debate is fun tbh

~ I like case turns

~ dont tell me to judge kick- you're the one debating

~ ballot pik/k/turn: if youre gonna sit here and tell the other team that asking for the ballot from a non white person is bad - u need to check urself this is the one arg im definitely not tabula rasa on... everybody wants the ballot - just debate that's how u get the ballot youre wasting ur time debating about the ballot cuz im gonna give it to someone whether they specifically ask for it or not it's an inevitable portion of debate

~ I dont have any hs hierarchical awareness so dont think imma vote for u bc ur that school or that team stop being pretentious this is a niche activity worry abt school more

2023-24 szn

~ tbh work K is so good like ugh ik that's not the most popular take but still

~ im not an economist so don’t assume ik what youre saying

policy v policy

~ do not pref me plz (im not incompetent or whatever but ur style of debate is just very bland)

~ i.e. "our ___ card is really good on this" LOL what does the card say???

policy v k

~ I love a good soft left aff v a critique

~ impact weighing is good but it ultimately comes down to a util debate anyways

~ I will vote on cap or fw btw so don’t be scared to run that

~ K teams don’t just be like fwk is racist u have to justify it use YOUR impacts

k v k

~ these are my fav debates to be in esp method debates

~ reject the alt – bruh u gotta tell me what mechanisms youre rejecting

~ I feel like yall be scared of each other – be confident!!!

other formats:

I don't know a thing about ld, speech, congress,pf, or parli so please explain things to me very simply

im still learning pf slowly but surely

be interesting

tech vs truth is not real

reading cap ≠ k debater

being a k hack is not a thing

being a policy hack is a thing

good luck

:)