Tabroom.com

NYCUDL SUMMER DEBATE INSTITUTE TOURNAMENT SESSION 2

2024 — New York, US

MS PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jackson Alvarado Cerulean S2 None

Luis Benitez Lime Lab S2 None

Samantha Crystal Marigold Lab S2

Sama Daga Crimson S2 None

[TAB]Catie Ford Lavender S2 None

Katherine Hernandez Lime Lab S2

Last changed on Tue July 23, 2024 at 6:08 PM EDT

Emailhernandez.k.vm@tuhs.nyc

PF-i've done PF for 4 years now so I am very familiar with how the format works. I evaluate the round based on the following- first, I want the constructive case to have clear points. I'd like to see contentions well detailed and to have them well constructed. If contentions aren't clearly laid out or messy then it will be hard to evaluate them. Second, I want direct rebuttals against the contentions, preferably that you address what contention you will be refuting before you start. (EX-"responding to my opponents first contention." Lastly, weighing. In your summary/final focus I wanna hear why you won the debate and what impacts you win on. Tell me as a judge why I should vote for you and why your impact matters more, if you do not tell me or emphasize why you won then I don't have anything to evaluate that on. GENERAL STATEMENT- I mostly never let crossfire impact my decision on who wins.

LD-I've done LD for about 2 years now so I know the formatting and evaluations. I evaluate on the following.

For the AFF

State your definitions and Framework at the very start. That way I know what to tie your case too.

Have all contentions and points clearly laid out, also speak at a pace where both the opponent and I can understand. (Spreading is optional)

For the 1AR, have an overview ready to go so you can explain your case and framework. Then make all rebuttals against the neg direct and formal, I look specifically look for rebuttals that explain why their impact outweighs for whatever reason and well constructed responses.

For the 2AR, At the very begining you should with weighing, this is super important because then I know what your impacts outweigh on and why they matter. Extend on your case and emphasize on points that the neg didn't respond to or conceded. Lastly I would like to see an extension on the rebuttals that were made during 1AR and why your case should matter more. I WILL NOT EVALUATE ON NEW POINTS IF ANY ARE MADE.

For the NEG

For the 1NC, State definitions (if needed) and framework at the very start. That way I know what to tie your case too. Have all contentions and points clearly laid out, also speak at a pace where both the opponent and I can understand. (Spreading is optional) Make sure to leave a decent amount of time left for the rebuttals so that way your hitting every point that you need too, make all rebuttals against the neg direct and formal, I look specifically look for rebuttals that explain why their impact outweighs for whatever reason and well constructed responses (SAME EVALUATION AS THE AFF)

For the 2NR, have an overview ready to go so you can explain your case and framework. You should be weighing in this speech since it is the last speech given by the NEG, explain why you won and why your impacts matter more. Extend on your case and emphasize on points that the neg didn't respond to or conceded. Lastly I would like to see an extension on the rebuttals that were made during 1NC and why your case should matter more.I WILL NOT EVALUATE ON NEW POINTS IF ANY ARE MADE.

CX DOES NOT IMPACT MY DECISION ON WHO WINS.

PARLI-I have never debated parli but I do know the formatting, I evaluate on the following

FOR THE PROP

1st constructive speech

This speech should define the definitions or what "This house" belives in. All contentions should be clear and consistent. Do not state all the contentions at once, go one at a time. Make sure to use all speech time!

2nd prop speech

Directly respond to their contentions, make sure you leave nothing unanswered explain why your impacts matter more than the opp. After you can answer to the responses that opp made to your case and start rebuilding your case to make it stronger.

3rd and final speech

Start with weighing in this speech, that way I can know why your impacts matter and on what they matter on. You can bring up any contentions that the opposition didn’t respond too and emphasize on that. YOU CAN NOT MAKE NEW RESPONSES OR POI'S IN THIS SPEECH.

FOR THE OPP

1st constructive speech

This speech should define the definitions or what "This house" belives in (this is optional depending if the opp agrees with the definitions). All contentions should be clear and consistent. Do not state all the contentions at once, go one at a time. Leave a good amount of time for rebuttals and make all responses are direct and make sense. Answer all contentions. Make sure to use all speech time!

2nd opp speech

Directly respond to their contentions, make sure you leave nothing unanswered explain why your impacts matter more than the prop. After you can answer to the responses that prop made to your case and start rebuilding your case to make it stronger. (SAME EVALUATION AS PROP)

3rd and final speech

Start with weighing in this speech, that way I can know why your impacts matter and on what they matter on. You can bring up any contentions that the prop didn’t respond too and emphasize on that. YOU CAN NOT MAKE NEW RESPONSES OR POI'S IN THIS SPEECH.

NO POI'S ARE ALLOWED IN THE FIRST OR LAST MINUTE OF THE 1ST CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH. WAIT 3O SEC BEFORE YOU ASK FOR ANOTHER POI

NO POI'S ALLOWED IN THE LAST SPEECH

HECKALING IS OK WITH ME

Darren Kessler Crimson S2 None

Thomas Liu Lavender S2

Diya Mangaraj Lavender S2

William Perez Cerulean S2 None

Alexis Qian Cerulean S2

Last changed on Fri July 26, 2024 at 2:37 AM EDT

hi im alexis (she/her). LD debater at stuy. also did three yrs of parli

add me to the email chain: alexisqiandebate@gmail.com

PF: fyi i know how pf works but i have never done pf myself. probably treat me somewhere btwn a flay and tech judge. tech > truth!!

i’ll evaluate anything that’s not offensive if it’s extended, frontlined/rebuilt OR dropped (by opp), and weighed. i don’t flow cross but i’ll listen. don’t steal prep but please use prep. PLEASE COLLAPSE AND SIGNPOST. i love a good line by line (good speaks for a fire lbl).

for weighing, i like scope, magnitude and probability. please comparative weigh and meta weigh too. extinction/big impacts are great just warrant them out. anything not extended or not on my flow = not on ballot.

good speaks if u do the stuff above well.

prog ok if ur opponent agrees (make sure i hear both teams agree) and i will gladly eval (see shortcuts below) but i prefer a good trad round over a messy prog round. speed is fine (ask ur opp tho) if u send me the doc and slow down on analytics, tags and anything not in the doc. be clear!

lmk if u have any questions

parli: i want to see you weigh, signpost and for you to not drop arguments (i think that parli rounds lack these elements and i need them if u want the ballot). i’ll vote on anything if it’s not offensive and it is extended, weighed and not really refuted well by the opponent OR rebuilt well by you. i tend to find myself heavily basing my decisions in parli rounds on weighing so please do it well, meaning you tell me how and why you won. for weighing, i prefer probability, scope and magnitude but i’m fine with anything. i’m not going to do the work for you so you should explain ur weighing and refutes well. BASICALLY PLS SIGNPOST, CLASH AND WEIGH

for my preferences, i like plans and counterplans a lot and i think they can be executed decently in parli but if you’re running one, know what you’re doing. frameworks are also cool and if there’s none, i’m defaulting to util. pois are good and heckles should be limited. speed is fine (if ur opp is fine w it) but be clear and signpost. lmk before round if u have any questions

novices: if you plan to run something prog then ask your opp before the round for a prog round. if they agree, do whatever you want. if not, please run a trad case. if you don’t ask and you do run prog, i’m prob giving you very low speaks but i may give you LPW if u do win. most policy/larp args are imo fine in novice (cps, das, etc) but just be nice about whatever you’re running and make it a little basic for your opp. if ur not sure if something is “prog” or should be ran in novice, please ask me!

beside high prog in novice, i’ll evaluate anything that’s not offensive if it’s extended, weighed and dropped by opp or frontlined/rebuilt by you. please weigh, extend and collapse!! probability, scope and mag are my fav weighing metrics. meta and comparative weighing is great also. if u have any questions lmk before round

jv/varsity:

tech > truth

shortcuts:

1 - larp/policy (my fav)!! love policy v policy rounds, pls clash a lot

1/2 - theory/t (not friv)

2 - trad

3 - low phil (like kant) - pls explain

3 - friv theory…

3/4 - generic ks (cap, setcol)

4 - other ks or phil u can explain

5/strike - high phil, confusing ks

?? - tricks (i don't love them but i might eval depending on how i feel tbh. just know ur getting LPW and i rather not base my whole ballot on them. also i'm bad at flowing by ear so i lowkey may just not catch ur tricks at all. take ur chances if u want!!)

defaults:

t > theory > rob > fw > substance

p and p negates

no rvis, competing interps, dtd or dta (i can be swayed either way)

comparative worlds

^ for all of that, you can argue otherwise. i’m very easily swayed.

to elaborate on shortcuts above, i can eval trad, larp and theory/t (mixed feelings abt friv but will eval) pretty well since this is what i run. i don’t feel trained enough to judge non generic ks or high phil rounds but just explain and i guess i’m cool with it. i prefer topical cases honestly and i’m very biased to any reasonable t. i love cheaty cps and basically any larp. i like trad too but make it interesting and clash a lot.

FOR SPEED: i want to add that i will try (key word is try) to flow as much as possible but i flow horrible by ear (i type sorta slow in general). yes, speed is generally fine just be clear and most importantly, send docs (pls). if you want me to flow what you say, i really really need you to SLOW DOWN ON TAGS, ANALYTICS AND ANYTHING THAT ISNT IN THE DOC!! anything i don’t catch simply won’t be factored into my ballot.

if you have any questions about literally anything, just ask :)

Jolie Yeung Marigold Lab S2

Login to Tabroom

NYCUDL SUMMER DEBATE INSTITUTE TOURNAMENT SESSION 2

2024 — New York, US

MS PF Paradigm List

Judges