Tabroom.com

Cavalier Invitational at Durham Academy

2025 — Durham, NC/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Mary Beth Armstrong The Potomac School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 3, 2024 at 6:55 AM EST

PF & Policy Coach @ The Potomac School since 2021,

W&M '24, GMU '22 (debated (policy) 4 yrs in HS & 4 yrs at GMU)

I have a masters in marine science & will be working for NOAA on Arctic policy & research come February.

Put me on your email chain marybeth.armstrong18@gmail.com

Universal hot (lukewarm) takes

--Tech > Truth. Idk who the truth is so I’ll evaluate everything in the round at face value.

--I have no issues with speed, but I do have a problem with sounding like a blender on high. Some of you aren’t speaking fast, you're just a symphony of noise. I’ll clear twice before I stop flowing (and will make it very obvious I have stopped flowing.)

--As much as I try to remember to, I almost never time prep/speeches. If you ask me how much prep you have 8/10 times I will not know. Pls time each other.

--I ask to be on the email chain, so I have access to read evidence if I am instructed to do so. I do not flow off of speech docs.

--Impact calculus is always important. If I am buying your opponent’s arguments… give me a reason to vote for you anyway.

--Evidence!!!!! Warrants!!!! Evidence standards are in the trash can. I beg you to pull them out. (Most of the time) your evidence should have more than one sentence highlighted as a ‘warrant’. So many of you neglect to do any real warranted analysis. Examples ≠ warrants. Examples can be helpful, but ultimately do not rise to the level of warranted analysis you should be doing in debate. The team doing better evidence comparison is usually the team who gets my ballot.If the way you produce evidence is not in line with the NSDA Evidence Standards…. I may not be the judge for you. See PF header for specifics.

--If something happens in cross it needs to be in the next speech… I will never vote off of anything that happens in cross unless it also makes its way into a speech.

--I absolutely despise the way evidence is traded in PF. It is so unbelievably inefficient. I understand that not all teams are coached in the same way. However, if I am in the back of the round… you will benefit from sending cases/rebuttal docs BEFORE each speech.If you neglect to do this & you waste my time trying to hunt down a piece of evidence mid round… at the very least your speaker points will suffer because of it. Additionally, I have yet to see a round that has warranted a team asking for a marked document… even more egregiously you should never be asking your opponents to write or send out analytics… ur sooo self reporting… I know you aren’t flowing.

--Arguments need to be in the summary if you want me to evaluate them in the final focus.However, tagline extensions of arguments do not fly. It is helpful when you reference author names of certain piece of evidence, but you need to do be doing warranted and comparative analysis in addition to naming your evidence. Defense is not sticky.

--Theory: I hate judging theory rounds. I’d rather watch grass grow. With that being said… I do think at national circuit tournaments teams should probably be disclosing. Take that as you will… I have no problem using speaker points to express my displeasure having to judge a disclosure round.

--Ks: I will evaluate them, but probably have a pretty high threshold for explanation. You can read my policy paradigm for more specifics. However the biggest things to consider are 1. I am more inclined to evaluate Ks that either indict the aff or link to the topic. So many PF Ks are equivalent to links of omission… I am less inclined to vote for those. 2. I am also more inclined to vote for aff teams that actually try to engage the K.

--Tricks: Do not do this to me I will be sooooo upset.

Policy

I no longer judge many policy rounds. Potomac has one novice policy team that I work with. If I am in the back of any policy round, presume that I know little about the topic broadly. Be as specific as possible in your explanation of arguments (especially when it comes to T, CP mechs, etc).

The longer version of my paradigm is below but, TLDR: I’m receptive to all kinds of arguments. Read what you are good at.

Policy v Policy

Cards: I will read them to answer questions about my flow or to compare the quality of evidence of well debated arguments (this is not an excuse for poor explanation).

T: The standards I prefer and find most persuasive are limits/ground and real world context. I default to competing interpretations if no other metric is given. However, I err aff if I think yourinterpis reasonable (given reasonability is explained properly, it is often not) and the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if neg interp isslightlybetter. Otherwise, just defend your interp is a good vision of the topic.

Theory

I am generally fine with unlimited condo. However, will be much more inclined to vote on condo if your vision of unlimited condo is 7 counterplans in the 1NC with no solvency advocates. Fail to see how that is a) strategic or b) educational. I will certainly vote on condo if it is dropped or won tho.

I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends.

99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

K v Policy Affs

Specificity of links goes alongway. This doesn't mean your evidence has to be exactly about the plan but applying your theory to the aff in a way that takes out solvency will do a world of good for you. Please remember I haven't done research on this topic, so good explanations will be to your benefit.

Make sure the alt does something to resolve your links/impacts + aff offense OR you have FW that eliminates aff offense. (Having an alt in the 2NR is definitely to your benefit in these debates, I am less likely to err neg even if you win a link to the aff without some resolution).

However, I probably tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff, key to fairness, etc are all arguments I tend to find persuasive.

Good impact framing is essential in the majority of these debates. For the aff - be careful here, even if you win case outweighs, the neg can still win a link turns case arg and you will lose.

Contextual line-by-line debates are better than super long overviews. I will not make cross-applications for you.

K Affs v Policy

K Affs should probably have some relation to the resolution. They should also probablydo somethingto resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. If it isn't doing something, I need an extremely good explanation for why. TLDR: if I don’t know what the aff does after the CX of the 1AC, you are going to have a v hard time the rest of the round.

Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Fairness is an impact. However, go for whatever version of FW you are best at. In the same vein as some of the stuff above, being contextual to the aff is critical. If you make no reference to the aff especially in the latter half of the debate, it will be hard to win my ballot.

Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like & why that vision is better. Or if the negative team does not have a superb counterinterp - impact turn the affs model of debate.

K v K

If you find me in these debates, make the debate simple for me. Clear contextual explanations are going to go a long way. Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

Daniel Bell Collegiate School 6 rounds

Nathan Bell Cuthbertson High School 6 rounds None

Brooke Blanton Delbarton School 4 rounds

Tracy Brown The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Patrick Carney Langley 6 rounds

Warren Chui Durham Academy 4 rounds None

Micah Cook Taipei American School 2 rounds

Jamie Corcoran Delbarton School 5 rounds

Currently a speech coach and assistant director at Delbarton, I am a former policy debater. I follow PF closely, and track developments on the circuit by regularly spectating varsity rounds when not judging speech. Further, I work with my team on formulating quality K arguments.

Offense vs. Defense: Offense is prioritized over defense, requiring thorough extensions, frontlining, and weighing. Winning with purely defensive arguments will be challenging. In other words, if I am voting on a turn, it needs to follow the same structure as a contention—claim, warrant, impact. It should not be a blip.

Speed and Clarity: I’ll do my best to keep up with your pace, but please remain clear; if clarity is lacking, flowing your arguments becomes difficult.

Speech Guidelines:
- The second rebuttal should respond to the first rebuttal’s points.
- Arguments in Final Focus should generally also appear in Summary, with proper extensions and frontlining. New weighing in Final Focus is allowed but should be relevant and responsive; avoid loading it all in the final speech.

Comparative Weighing: Please use comparative weighing for links and impacts, focusing on elements like timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Note that link clarity and impact strength are critical.

Argument Scope: I’ll consider most arguments and come prepared with background knowledge on the topic (“tech over truth”). However, I’ll vote down arguments that include blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, or fabricated evidence.

Accommodations and Crossfire: I am open to making accommodations for debaters—just ask beforehand. And remember, crossfire exchanges should be civil; there’s no need for excessive intensity. Keep your crossfire balanced. If it feels like you're hogging the crossfire, you probably are.

N.B. While I recognize that PF is as much a studied game of strategy as anything else, running a K that your opposing team is ill-qualified to handle is not a winning strategy—it’s the enemy of genuine clash, and therefore, the enemy of quality debate. I will vote you down every time.

Email: jcorcoran@delbarton.org

Emerson Cortazar Myers Park High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 1:07 PM EST

(Put me on the chain) Email: emersonfczar@gmail.com

I debated in PF at Myers Park (Tag - MP RC) for 3 yrs. I have a little experience on the Nat Circuit and I evaluate off the flow. I also like some good rhetoric, though.

- I don't believe in progressive debate too much. I don't like theory and Ks that much, but I'll vote on them. I'm not that experienced with them. IVIs are cool as long as they are actually true and not made up. But still, if they drop like your theory, IVI, or K completely or suck at responding to it I'll vote on it.

- I prefer weighing to start in rebuttal but obviously, it doesn't have to be, just make sure it is in summary. If you want to weigh in final that's alright (eh) but like second final weighing is kind of crazy so just try and weigh in summary and final.

- Try not to just weigh on the impact level, weighing on the link level matters more to me as impact weighing is kind of obvious for the most part. However, I do like meta weighing a lot.

- Not a huge fan of speed, especially if you're just reading off a document, you can go a little fast but if it's late at night, early morning, or mid-afternoon try to avoid spreading. But if you want to spread you can, it won't affect if you win or lose just send a speech doc beforehand.

- Warrants are more important than impacts, if I don't hear a warrant, I feel that your impact is way weaker (ex. X president causes nuke war w/o any reason why (such a silly impact)). I prefer logic over an unwarranted piece of evidence. Having an authors name behind an argument doesn't mean much to me if the author is from some crazy biased news source and your card is cut crazy. However, I'll still vote on not that logical of an impact as long as the other team doesn't point it out (ie. it's conceded).

- In conclusion, I will vote on anything as long as you win it on the flow with some amount of warranting but sometimes I'll submit my ballot with a frowny face.

Also, don't be rude or yell at the other team. I will drop your speaker points if you do that. But, most likely, I will give you like 29 or 30 speaker points as long as you don't fumble. And try to have fun.

Amy Craig Durham Academy 1 rounds None

Malcolm Davis The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 12:19 PM EST

Hi I am Malcolm. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I started in public forum (where I often am to be found), but have coached and judged circuit LD and Policy from time to time. I went to college at Swarthmore, where I studied philosophy and history. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke! I am a staunch advocate of whimsy in all its forms!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! BOTH malcolmcdavis@gmail.com AND nuevadocs@gmail.com

Pursuant to tournament policies (where applicable) (glenbrooks 24) I will be happy to use https://speechdrop.net/ I think speechdrop is a good choice for elim rounds, so spectators get docs as well. In rounds with spectators, I expect the debaters will offer to put the spectators on the email chain or allow them to view the speechdrop. If debaters do not ask spectators if they would like to be on the email chain, I will.

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me.

I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. Finally, I have an obligation to ensure this space is educational and welcoming (I will not allow teams to 'request' spectators not flow on laptops, for example.) I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. if you are using google docs, please save your file as a.docx before sending it to the email chain. Google docs are unreliable with tournament wifi, and make it harder for your opponent to examine your evidence. PDFs are bad too (your opponent has a right to clear your formatting and read the very small text of your cards) (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before). All forms of documents with any kind of restrictions on editing or viewing are unacceptable forms of evidence sharing.

Each paradigm below is updated and moved to the top when I attend a tournament as a judge in that event, but feel free to scroll through all of them if you want a well rounded view on how I judge.

he/him

----

PF Paradigm (updated for bronx 24):

Judging paradigm for PF.

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate. Note that I flow card names and tags and organize my flow thereby, so I would appreciate you extending evidence by name. Also, I just simply have never judged a round where the quantifications or lack thereof have been the deciding factor, do with this info what you will but probably don't triumphantly extend "this is not quantified!!!!" as your only piece of summary defense with me judging.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be.

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure, and am troubled by the ways in which theory debates sometimes trivialize questions of 'safety' and 'accessibility' which are almost always under explained and under warranted.

That said, I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Guattari, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging cx. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24

Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.

I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.

Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.

---

Matthew Doggett Trinity Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:44 PM EST

Email- mmdoggett@gmail.com

Background:

My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.

General:

First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.

Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.

Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.

Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.

Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.

Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.

Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.

Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.

In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!

Katheryne Dwyer Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 10:16 PM EST

hey! i'm katheryne. 3yo, debated nat circ pf for 3 years, coaching + judging since. now junior at uchicago, assistant coach at taipei american school, and lead coach at national debate club. if i'm judging in person you can assume i've done topic prep.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com and katheryne@cdadebate.club to the chain.

tl;dr: good judge for substance, pretty good judge for k, mid/bad judge for theory. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way.

** what can i go for in front of you?

substance: 5
k neg (k w/ topic link): 4
soft left: 3
k aff (non-t k): 2
theory: 2
IVI: 1
tricks: strike

** substance/general (applies to all types of arguments!):

1. pretty standard tech judge. i start with weighing to determine highest level of offense, then determine best link in.

2. warrants are very important to me. every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need warrants in link ext to be properly extended.

3. respond to args in next speech, nothing is sticky.

4. all competing claims must be compared in some manner or i will, by definition, either have to intervene or ignore them. this means: competing pieces of evidence, links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc.

5. i like less, better developed and implicated arguments than a bunch of spammed poorly implicated ones. narrative is a good skill no matter what level you're debating at.

6. if no offense i presume neg. if a ton of floating offense is won and isn't compared, i will try as best i can to resolve the round without intervening, and presume neg if there is truly no way.

7. speed is fine, i have never met a PF round i could not flow if there 1. are docs 2. is clarity and 3. is signposting. i will clear you once, past that you're on your own. if you are not a clear speaker, you need to slow down in front of me.

** theory:

1. flexible preferences: default CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. less flexible preferences: theory immediately after abuse, prefer shell format to paragraph, won't vote on out of round abuse, won't vote on ad homs, much more hesitant to vote on out of round impacts than in round impacts.

2. pf theory debates are complicated by the fact that none of us agree on what the above words mean. to me: RVIs are not arguments which garner offense. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. which means that to me, i will vote on an OCI even if no RVIs is won but i will not vote on a defensive CI if no RVIs is won.

3. i am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately "idk how to deal w/ theory" isn't a workable response in varsity tournaments. i will give a long RFD explaining what happened and how you could have responded, but i won't ever down a varsity team for reading theory on face.

4. layering arguments are crucial when there are several offs. even when there is only one off, i need the DTD + theory uplayers weighing extended through final to vote on it.

5. the "jargon as extension of implied warrant" problem in pf is especially bad in theory debates, which is probably why i dislike them so much. the two words "norm setting" in the ff are not enough to justify a ballot for me, do a little more.

6. my personal leanings: OS disclosure is good, i care very little about the rest of these random disclosure interps. paraphrasing is bad, hard to defend as an academic practice.

7. i won't auto-drop on evidence ethics violations if i notice them without you telling me to. this is intervention. in egregious cases i'll tank speaks. if you want me to read a piece of evidence and cross it off my flow, tell me and i will. formal challenges are a waste of a debate, but of course i will evaluate them if levied.

** k neg (w/ topic link):

when done well, these are some of my favorite debates and i will defend their educational value (yes, even in PF) to the grave. when done poorly, these are hands down my least favorite debates. do not assume i will hack for a poorly read K, or give you good speaks.

1. i prefer really specific link debates. omission, for example, is not a good link. vague gestures at their model/narrative/manner of thinking are not good links. often, the problem is not the argument itself, just the lack of specificity.

2. the difficulty with alts in PF is the biggest incompatibility between the argument and format. some alts are just straight up CPs, i am sympathetic to procedural arguments about that not being allowed, i am open to defenses of that practice as well. i am warming up on reject alts if the rest of your advocacy is very specific, and there's good cohesion between rejection and your framing. i am personally skeptical of discourse shapes reality arguments but will of course vote for them if they are won.

3. i am open to basically any way to see my ballot (prioritization of X, worlds comparison, some obligation as an educator/judge, etc) i am equally open to the idea that asking me to use my ballot in certain ways probably opens up ground for T arguments. that being said, my inclination is against deleting 4 minutes of aff (first speaking) ground, i want to weigh the case, i am easily persuaded by arguments that tell me to do so. winning K turns case = easiest way to my ballot w/ the K.

4. going for framework, DAs on alt solvency, link D, and perms is the most impressive method of engagement to me in pf. doing this well is usually a 30 and the W.

5. do not read a paraphrased k in front of me. disclose the k.

** k aff (non-t):

i understand these arguments probably above average amongst pf tech judges, and have a lot of experience reading and judging them, but i honestly don't like them very much. that being said i'll eval anything and vote for anything that's won.

1. you need to be really convincing about why it is educational not to debate the topic, i think T decently read is quite convincing. i do not think T is violent but i'll eval it. happy to vote for k aff if T is beat (have many times).

2. need good explanation of importance of the ballot. will not vote on these args if i do not understand why i am meant to do so.

3. if you're hitting a K aff, do something better than "but this is PF." i vote for T and cap against k affs easily. do that instead. creative methods of engagement are also great, but i really will just vote for T.

4. i generally do not think identity positions are immune from disclosure arguments. i understand arguments about outing and will flow them. but i am easily convinced that disclosure is still important. obviously evidence and paraphrasing norms are dependent on the style/type of evidence used, use best practices and be ready to defend them.

Sebastian Glos Lake Highland Preparatory School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 5:43 AM EST

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com AND lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) Try to set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 4th year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu.

TLDR: tech > truth. I will evaluate anything on the flow as long as it's warranted and weighed.

How I evaluate rounds: First, I look to who is winning the weighing debate; if there is a weighing mechanism that is extended properly and comparative, it forces me to evaluate that case/argument first. From there, I evaluate whether that argument is extended properly; this should include the link, internal link, and impact at the bare minimum. Then, I look to see whether there are any responses to the argument; if there are responses, I hope you engage with the warrant of the response and respond to it and not just extend case evidence. I find myself calling a lot of debate washes simply because each team will just repeat responses from rebuttal and summary but not engage with the response itself. Thus, if I find that you are winning the weighing, case/argument, and extending properly, you should easily win my ballot. I would also like to preface that this is in the context of a case argument, but I have also happily voted on any type of offense that has followed this structure.

Some overall specifics:

Speed: I am good with PF speed, but it's more important that your opponent is okay with it rather than me. Also, if you are going to be spreading please just slow down on tags and author names, dont just go through it full speed.

Framework: I am cool with pretty much any framework read in PF, just nothing phil oriented. If a framework is read, and a counter framework is not read, I will default the framework read. Otherwise, if two opposing frameworks are read, I prioritize pre-fiat offense then post-fiat. I often find teams under prioritizing pre-fiat offense, you should go for these arguments instead of engaging with the post-fiat offense of the framework.

Weighing: Please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal makes everyone's jobs easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

Prog: I think if you are competing in the varsity division of any national tournament you should be prepared to debate a shell or K.

Theory: I am not insanely versed in the norms of PF, but I think disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I rather not judge a friv debate, if you wanna read one, i probably will not flow it. Otherwise, I have voted for disclosure, paraphrasing, and vague alts. As long as you win some kind of in round abuse, I will probably vote for it.

K’s: This is where I am more comfortable evaluating. I think K teams in PF don’t utilize the alternative to its full potential, please spend time explaining how the alternative resolves the link of the K. Otherwise I am somewhat familar in: capitalism, settler colonialism, psycho (lacan), virilio, and security.

T: please go for T more. So many PF teams get away with abusive things because of their interp of the resolution. Also a great way to respond to the K!

Evidence: I will not read ev unless explicitly told to evaluate evidence.

Presumption: I presume the first speaking team. However, if there is another warrant read in the round, I will evaluate that.

If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Message me on facebook if you have any questions!

Somethings I really enjoy:
- House music
- Tay-K
- Warrant comparison.

Somethings I dont really enjoy:
- Offensive overviews while speaking 2nd.
- Saying you outweigh on scope when you dont.

Padma Gulur Durham Academy 4 rounds

William Hann Pinecrest High School 6 rounds None

Erik Hsu Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 9:42 AM EST

Taipei American '24 | Georgetown '28 (he/him)

I competed in PF for four years at Taipei American School, and I’m one of their assistant coaches now.

Add emh208@georgetown.edu and taipeidocz@gmail.com to the chain.

To speed things up, send speech docs (as a Word file or in the body of the email) with all cut cards read before case and rebuttal.

TLDR: Tech > Truth. Flow judge who buys anything on substance - I vote on the least mitigated link into the best-weighed impact. A very big fan of strategic flow rounds and not a fan of progressive arguments.

Framework: I default to util unless told otherwise. Open to any framing, but personally liked extinction first when I debated.

Speed: I can flow at relatively fast speeds (anything below 300 wpm with a doc is fine), but I’m not a fan of incomprehensible spreading. I won't flow off your doc -- at most, I’ll look at your doc while you speak. This is still a speaking and communication event, so it’s your job to put your arguments on my flow. I’ll clear you if I can’t understand -- also respect your opponents if they clear you.

Progressive: I’m not the right judge for theory, K’s, or anything that’s not substance. That being said, I have a basic understanding of how to evaluate theory and Ks because I had to debate such arguments. I will evaluate theory if there’s real in-round abuse, but my threshold for that is high. Bottom line -- I can try to evaluate a round with 6 flows in it, but both you and I would probably not want me to.

Evidence: I’m fine with paraphrasing, but making up or miscutting evidence is an easy way to lose my ballot. I only look at evidence if someone tells me to look at it. You also can't just say "check X evidence, it's bad" -- you have to tell me what the specific indict is and why I should cross it off my flow.

Technical Specifics:

If it's dropped in a speech, it's conceded (besides constructive/case). That means second rebuttal must frontline both offense AND defense.

Arguments I’m voting on need to be in case or rebuttal, summary, AND final focus.

Defense is not sticky. You need to extend defense from case or rebuttal through summary AND final focus.

15-second grace period for all speeches. Hold your opponents accountable.

Crossfire is binding, but you have to bring up concessions in a speech.

Arguments are not extended if their warrants are not extended with them. If it’s the argument I’m voting on, extend all parts of the argument (uniqueness, link, AND impact).

If you want my ballot, you should probably:

Signpost – tell me where you’re going so my flow looks like how you want it to.

Warrant – give me clear reasons why what you’re saying is true.

Frontline – explain why your arguments are true despite your opponent’s responses to them. It doesn’t matter if your argument is important if you’re not winning it. After you’re winning your argument, you should…

Weigh – whether it’s comparing competing warrants, pieces of evidence, links, or impacts, tell me why I should prefer what you’re saying over what your opponents are saying. If it comes to it, metaweighing is equally as necessary. Expect intervention if you don’t tell me what I should prioritize.

Collapse - instead of going for everything, pick good arguments in the back half and…

Implicate - tell me why the arguments you’ve made win you the round.

Speaks:

Make me laugh and you get 30 speaks. If you’re not funny, I also love smart analytics, meta-weighing, and prereqs.

Being rude to your opponents is an easy path to a 26. Debate is competitive, but have fun with it.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round. I’m also a fan of post-rounding if you don’t understand/agree with the RFD.

Alex Huang American Heritage Palm Beach HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 9, 2024 at 5:53 PM EST

I’m Alex. I debated for Durham Academy in North Carolina for four years, and won the TOC in 2023. I am now a freshman at Swarthmore College and coach for American Heritage Palm Beach.

PLEASE READ — TL;DR

*Tech>Truth to the best of my ability.

*I prioritize high quality analysis over high quantity lack of analysis. I will not vote on blippy turns with no warrants, and case arguments with no internal links.

*Please send an email chain to alexander.huang@ahschool.com (no Google Docs), and label it properly: Yale Round 1: Durham HH (Neg) vs Taipei CW (Aff). Send docs before every speech and send them quickly.

*Every part of an argument must be extended for me to vote on it, and anything I vote on must have a warrant.

*I will vote by first looking to weighing and then links into the weighing, but feel free to make arguments for why I should vote otherwise.

*Second rebuttal must respond to first, and there should be nothing new past summary.

*Be nice please. Everyone is trying to learn, and everyone is trying to have fun. Don’t be a prick.

SPECIFICS

*Do not sacrifice analysis for speed and/or shenanigans. While “tech” in place of “truth” means that I try to limit the influence of my own personal beliefs to the maximum extent, it does not mean that the need for your analysis to be technically persuasive is absent. Smart analysis is always going to triumph over bad, unwarranted evidence. Tech debate that is in-depth and full of smart analysis is so much fun. Tech debate that is fast blips that are unwarranted misconstructions of bad evidence is boring and noneducational.

*Speed is fine, but be clear. Slow down on tags and in the back half. Use speed strategically. 3 slow minutes of the best argument in the round is always going to beat 18 mediocre arguments read at lightning pace.

*Cross is binding, but must be brought up in speech

*Implicate good defense against weighing. There is a trend in PF where both teams try to find the quickest link into extinction, and all defense goes out the window. I am not a fan. If you are winning terminal or near terminal defense against an extinction outweighs + short circuit, tell me why I shouldn’t look there first. A 0.00000000000000000001% chance of something occurring rounds to 0, after all.

*Theory: It must be read in the speech after the violation. For your information (because I think there is inherently a little more intervention in theory debate, since we are debating about debate, and the persuasiveness of certain responses is going to be based on what I have seen in debate), I think paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good, but I would be willing to vote any way on theory.

*Ks: I have a relatively high threshold for a quality K. I think a quality K is very educational, and also fun to watch. However, to be a quality K, a K should be treated like a research project – high quality work that is clear, done yourself, and disclosed for others to interact with. I have a very low tolerance for Ks that are stolen from LD or Policy, read against teams who barely link, and are generally unintelligible. Such Ks will lose very quickly to “no link/alt doesn’t solve/no impact” responses.

*Non-starters: no tricks, no speaks theory, no friv theory, and no ad-homs.

*Post-rounding: Post-rounding is educational, but be polite and curious. I’m not going to change my decision. Ask to learn more about why I wasn’t persuaded, but there is no debate between you and me.

Jade Ismail The Potomac School 6 rounds

Ayan Jung Cary Academy 6 rounds

Michelle Keefer East Lincoln High School 5 rounds None

Brittney Kent East Lincoln High School 4 rounds None

Uma Kurapati Marvin Ridge High School 6 rounds

Adam Levin Cary Academy 6 rounds

Salinda Lewis The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Jeris Livengood Wake Preparatory Academy 6 rounds None

Quinn McKenzie Trinity Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 2:40 AM CST

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Lindsey McNamara American Heritage Palm Beach HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 10:54 AM EST

Updated January 2024

Contact info: lindseydebate@gmail.com

Background: I debated in LD for 4 years at William T. Dwyer High School and graduated in 2017. I was a lone wolf at most tournaments and got 1 bid to TOC my senior year. I also competed in several college policy tournaments at University of Florida. Jack Ave was my coach in highschool and Charles Karcher was my partner in college policy if that helps fill in any gaps of my paradigm (aside from LARP).

General:

I will vote on almost any argument so long as it is clearly explained why and how I should do so; however, I reserve the right to vote you down if you make blatantly offensive arguments or say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as well as make blatant evidence violations. Do not miscut or misattribute evidence.

Kritiks are great and philosophy in general is great.

Be nice to novices pls and just nice in general. If you feel like you have to exclude your opponent on purpose by spreading or drowning them things they clearly don't understand, for example theory, topicality, etc. your speaks will suffer and you might get voted down. If you do not think you can still win the debate by being inclusive to a novice or someone clearly worse than you, then strike me. Debate should be educational and should not leave a debater suffering in round because of the other debater having a ruthless desire to win.

Give trigger warnings for potentially triggering arguments.

Weighing and impacting is very important- I want to hear how I should vote and why. Write my ballot for me. If there is no weighing, I will be sad.

Prep ends when email is sent or flash leaves the computer. If you are typing, it is prep.

CX is binding.

Flex prep is fine.

I don't want to hear a lengthy spew of cards. You can read cards as refutation, but please add analysis as to why I should care.

Signposting is very important, especially for PF. Please be extra clear.

*LD*

Defaults if not told otherwise:

K/epistemology before theory

Comparative worlds

Speed:

I’m okay with spreading and I will yell clear if I cannot understand. It has been a few years since I have judged so maybe start slower with your speed. Please put me on the email chain though- see above for my email.

Kritiks:

This is my favorite form of debate. I am not as well read on high theory, but I am open to listen to anything. When reading these types of arguments, assume I know nothing. So long as debaters clearly explain what their argument means and does, then I will vote on it. I am also open to non T K affs.

Topicality/Theory:

Friv theory makes me sad.

Topicality is cool if run well.

I will vote on it if you win it, but it may be harder to win in front of me. I am not that good at flowing spikes so keep that in mind when deciding how many you want to read.

LARP:

Although I did policy debate, when I judge LD I don't want to feel like I'm judging policy. Not a fan, but you do you; however, if the arguments win, then they win.

Disclosure:

I think disclosure CAN be a good norm for debate but is NOT practiced well- please keep that in mind. Disclosure theory can be run in front of me, but if you are running it on someone who doesn’t know what disclosure is- that will be bad for you and it will make me sad. If you are running it against a small school/lone wolf debater, I will probably have more leniencies for them. If it is being used as a frivolous tactic, I will be sad.

*PF*

My LD background frames my view of debate; however, I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging. Signposting and weighing is incredibly important. I like rounds to be as clear and fleshed out as possible. Write my ballot for me. LD norms have bled over into PF so if those types of arguments are going to be read, they need to be read well with uniqueness/link/impact. Please don't assume because I did LD that you will have a better chance at winning just for reading these types of arguments. You can read whatever you want in front of me, so long as it is read, impacted and weighed well.

Overall, have fun, learn something, and be a good human. Don’t change your style to please a judge, just debate well. 1 extra speaker point for doggo or kitty memes and Ru Paul’s Drag Race references- I like to know when debaters have read and paid attention to my paradigm :) Good luck!!<3

Andrea Munoz The Potomac School 6 rounds

Sulochana Nunna Langley 6 rounds None

Nimi Patel Collegiate School 3 rounds

Les Phillips The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 7, 2024 at 2:24 AM PST

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Veer Prakash Charlotte Latin School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 5:37 AM EST

I did PF for four years at Durham Academy. I'm a sophomore at NYU Stern, and I coach for Charlotte Latin.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu and charlottelatindebate@gmail.com

TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments. I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing.

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.

To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.

Signpost AND IMPLICATE. please. Nothing new past summary.

Cross is binding, but bring it up in speech if something important happens.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible.

Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.

Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read in the speech immediately following the violation.

My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.

Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Good Ks are really good, and bad Ks are REALLY bad. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.

Jordan Press NSU University School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 2:24 PM EST

My name is Jordan Press. I debated for 4 years at Cypress Bay High School, graduating in 2016. I was very active as a debater/judge/coach from 2012-2019. I now work at NSU University School as an educator and assistant coach.

jordan.press1998@gmail.com for email chains – also feel free to email questions.

The purpose of an email chain is to speed up evidence exchange, not to have the judge read off your doc during your speeches while you go incomprehensibly fast. I can flow most speeds but when PFers go fast they usually aren't clear, andif you aren't clear I can't flow. I don't want to flow off your doc. Prioritize being efficient over being quick. Also if you're going really fast I'm probably not flowing author names, so keep that in mind for extensions. The only time I look at evidence is if 1) there's an unresolved evidence dispute, 2) I feel like I'm forced to do so in order to make my decision (which means the debate was super messy/unclear), or 3) I'm curious

Back half strategy: I strongly prefer rounds where you make it clear to me what voting for you does. What does the Aff/Neg world look like and why is your world better? I want a clear, concise, cohesive, and crystalized narrative. Additionally, extensions require context and warranting that evolves around the events occurring in the round. The best rounds are the ones where debaters shape their extensions and warrants around the clash happening in the round instead of reading off a pre-written extension file. If you just tell me to “extend Smith” with no context, I probably won’t extend it on my flow. If you are going to read blippy card extensions in Summary/FF I am not the judge for you. Moreover, Depth > Breadth. I am much more likely to vote for a team extending 1 cleanly explained, weighed and fleshed out argument than a team extending 3-4 arguments that they are winning but are not explained in-depth in the back half of the round.

You should weigh early and often – it helps develop your narrative and helps me know what issues to look to first when filling out my ballot.

On Speaker Points – teams who do this stuff ^^ well will get higher speaks.

Defense isn't sticky. 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

My threshold for accepting responses to unwarranted arguments is really low.

I am generally tech over truth (this is a false dichotomy but w/e), but there is a threshold for offensive arguments. I will vote off ridiculous (in real world context) arguments if they are properly warranted, and easily not vote off things that are universal truths if they are not properly warranted. Warranting is key, which means it's generally much easier to have good explanations for real, truthful arguments anyways.

Progressive Arguments: By this point I'd say I'm comfortable evaluating theory and topical Ks. If your K is unusual or more dense, you will need to overexplain and go slower, especially in the back half. I'm fine if you want to read a non-topical K but you'll need to overexplain even more. Ks and Theory weren't a thing when i was in HS so my beliefs are shifting as I learn and I have no preconceived notions on the args. I have literally 0 opinions on RVIs, IVIs, Ks, ROB, and Theory. You can shape my beliefs with the arguments you make in round.

On Disclosure specifically, I am pretty tab. I think there are both good and bad reasons for disclosure.

Tricks are a nonstarter.

In novice/middle school/JV rounds, I presume for the side I have to do the least work to find a voter for.

In Varsity/Nat Circuit rounds I presume Neg.

I don't care where you sit; if you stand while speaking, where you do crossfire, what you wear, etc. Do whatever makes you comfortable as long as I can hear you/your opponents.

Feel free to post-round me or ask questions – I want to help you learn and grow- just don’t be rude or belittling towards me and especially not towards your opponents. I am an adult; I can just leave if the conversation becomes unproductive. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, but even more importantly it is an educational one. Be good humans, don’t let your drive to win rounds cloud your judgement.

Most importantly have fun and good luck! If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round begins or email me.

Ganesh Radhakrishnan Marvin Ridge High School 6 rounds None

Pav Reddy The Potomac School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 15, 2024 at 2:43 PM EST

*Pronouns: they/them
Put me on the doc chains: pgreddy411@gmail.com

Assistant Coach at GMU, 4 years of debate experience starting as a college novice, I primarily work with novice debaters

PF Coach at The Potomac School

-------

I'm starting to get frustrated with the amount of teams reading disclosure theory and making it the core of their strategy. I would much rather judge rounds that have substantive debating about the topic and think that theory as it's being deployed is actively harming schools with less coaching resources to learn about how to answer it effectively. You can still probably win the theory flow in front of me, but your speaks will reflect this perspective.

I'm semi-new to the PF community, but I've judged several rounds and am now coaching for Potomac. I tend to draw from my experience in the college policy community for my argumentative preferences/biases. For the most part, I think you'll be fine running whatever cases you've prepared in front of me. I don't care much about presentation or what speed you make your arguments. So long as I can flow you or you adapt successfully if I clear you, then you'll be good doing pretty much anything.

Policy

---------

Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations. If you are reading a policy aff that has little relevance to the topic, or a very small portion of it, you should have good defenses for doing so. I try to vote off of the flow as much as I can, and then look to evidence secondarily unless told otherwise.

CPs/CP Theory:

Slow down while reading theory/CP texts

You need to provide a detailed explanation of how the CP solves all of the aff's internal links starting in the 2NC. If it does not claim to solve 100%, there needs to be a lot of explanation coming out of the block explaining why I shouldn't care about the solvency deficit as part of your sufficiency framing. You need to disprove perms well. Multiplank CPs with a plank to solve various internals are fun, though planks should be unconditional. CPs should have solvency advocates.

DAs:

Priority for me is link over uniqueness. If you're going to group sections, answer each argument made against that section, don't just read a generic link wall and assume that I'll connect everything on the line-by-line.

Case:

Case debates are great. Impact defense is the most important argument to get on these flows. I will vote neg on presumption, but you need to spend a lot of time on it. Disads on case are cool. Impact turns were amongst my favorite arguments in debate, and I love to see them.

Kritiks:
Top Level: I debated policy all 4 years I participated, but I’ve spent my recent time in grad school engaging in critical scholarship within public health. So, I at least feel mildly more comfortable listening to a K. Due to this, I'm probably interested in hearing your args but will lack somewhat fundamental “debate” knowledge/will lack the experience to relate the concepts in your literature to policy as it exists in-round. This is especially true when using literature bases that are less common/higher theory.

However, if you wind up with me in the back of a round both teams should be careful with if you’re giving enough time to comprehend/incorporate every warrant you want me to get. Giving some extra pen/brain time, like even more than you think you needed, will help you get my ballot more easily. If you’re trying to go for a late-breaking PIK, then flag what args you’re pulling it from earlier in the debate with your explanation.

My default is that the aff gets a perm. It's up to the aff to explain to me why the kritik is not mutually exclusive. Neg teams can win no perms, but I haven't been in the back of a round where this arg was won or made effectively.

FW: I try to be as blank template as I can be for clash rounds. But, despite personally believing in/studying critical discourse, I am too inexperienced in these rounds to register the args a K team would make on framework without giving more time to process them compared to what a policy team would need. At the same time, I'm not great when it comes to parsing through framework/T against K affs. I'll need clear judge instruction for what my ballot should be in these rounds.

Other:

-Clarity should never be sacrificed for speed, though I make exceptions if you're trying to squeeze out one last card. This is especially true of online debate. I'll do my best to flow you, but I could be missing args you want to make if you're not at least differentiating between args.

-I've got worsening audio processing issues and spreading with online debate only compounds this. I'll do my best to try and keep up with you, but don't be surprised if you think you made an argument and I don't catch it. Going slower than your usual speed will definitely improve the chances of me flowing your argument properly.

Benjamin Redler Ransom Everglades 6 rounds

Daniel Rivero Christopher Columbus High School 6 rounds

Ilyas Saltani Langley 6 rounds None

Sara Sambandam Lake Highland Preparatory School 4 rounds

Bryce Sheffield Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 16, 2024 at 7:29 AM CST

debatesheff@gmail.com

If policy ALSO add lcandersoncx@gmail.com

If LD ALSO add breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Policy debater at the University of Houston '26

Coach for Seven Lakes HS and Break Debate

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

Stop asking for marked docs if they didn't mark any cards. Learn how to flow. Asking for what cards were and weren't read must be asked with a timer on whether it is Cross or flex prep.

Be clear, especially during cards. I should be able to hear every word. You get two warnings - after that, I will immediately stop flowing. I am not going to have my laptop open during speeches, so make sure you are debating like a human and not a spreading robot.

I flow on paper. Give pen time or I will give myself pen time.

I consider myself tab for arguments that are in Policy, but I am not great for LD shenangins outside of things like basic phil arguments. Regardless, conditoned on my biases listed below my decision will be determined based on my flow.

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

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

Condo is good and the negative can read as many as they want to. I default judge kick but that can be debated. This is not to say I will not vote on condo, but it requires substanial mistakes to be made by the negative in order for me to get even close to think 2AR on condo is a good option.

Most CP theory arguments are better made as competition arguments. I lean neg on most CP theory questions besides things like Object, private actor, or multi-actor fiat.

I will not adjudicate anything that didn't happen in the round including out of round violations.

I have a disdain for argumentative cowardice. You should not pref me if your entire strategy is based on arguments like tricks, RVIs, or frivolous theory. I will not vote for you.

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

Answering a 1NC position that wasn't read is an auto 27.5. I don’t care. Flow.

Stolen from Pat Fox: When debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice on anything else, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

Bob Shurtz Hawken 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:12 AM EST

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Michael Siller The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2024 at 9:12 AM EST

Michael Siller Paradigm

About Me: I am a parent judge on behalf of either Stuyvesant High School or the Bronx High School of Science, depending on the tournament. I am not a "technical" judge. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.

Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:

(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.

(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.

(iii) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible in a meaningful way.

(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.

"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.

Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise, professionalism, and ability to think on your feet). Concerning thinking on your feet, I pay particular attention to how well you comport yourself in cross-fire.

For purposes of sharing evidence, my email is mbsiller1@gmail.com

I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!

Neha Singh Langley 6 rounds None

Sahil Sood Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Zoe Spicer Charlotte Latin School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 3:48 AM EST

I debated for Charlotte Latin School and qualified to the TOC twice and NSDAs once.

tl;dr: basically do the opposite of Jenebo's paradigm :)

Please pre-flow before the round!

If you incorporate "riddle me this" into a speech, I'll boost your speaks by 0.2

Humor and passion are encouraged! If I think you're funny, I'll boost your speaks by 0.2

I consider myself a flay judge

- Truth vs. tech is not a zero-sum game (credits to Sauren Khosla)

- I like narrative debate

- To win my ballot, have a clean link into an argument and do persuasive, comparative weighing on it

- Probability > magnitude. I’m not a fan of extinction framing

- Card dumping and blowing up the one argument that your opponents don’t respond to is not a good idea. The more squirrely/blippy the argument, the lower my threshold for responses are. I will not evaluate new or different explanation in later speeches if the argument was not clear to begin with

- I buy logical analytics over unwarranted evidence

- If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I default neg

Speeches

- Frontlining and collapsing in second rebuttal are strategic but not required

- No independent contentions in rebuttal, but DAs and advantages are fine

- Summary and final focus must extend the entire argument (claim, warrant, impact). You don’t have to extend card names, but it’s helpful

- Final focus and summary should mirror each other

Speed

- You can speak relatively fast if it improves the quality of the debate. Talking fast to talk fast is not impressive

- The faster you speak, the less I will catch, and I will not call for speech docs

Progressive Args

- I will not evaluate them (Ks, theory, topicality, etc.). Not only do I have little experience evaluating these kind of arguments, but I don't think they should exist in an event uniquely designed to be accessible

- Reading identity-based or K-like framing/weighing (without the ROB) is fine

- Paraphrasing is fine (as long as you can produce the corresponding cards) and disclosure is optional

- I will call for evidence if I think it’s misconstrued or it’s important for my decision. I will drop you if you egregiously misconstrue your ev

Inclusivity

- Please try not to talk over each other in cross (but if your opponents turn cross into a speech, it’s ok to interrupt them)

- I will drop you if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, excessively rude, etc. Please be nice, it’s not that hard

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round. Most importantly, have fun!

Alexander Sun Charlotte Latin School 4 rounds

Citori Swink Jack Britt High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:13 AM EST

I am an assistant coach, this is my second year coaching, third year judging. I am a teacher certified in English Language Arts and have actively taught high school for 5 years. My notes and comments tend to follow my flow/train of thought as I type as I go, making comments as I see things.

For my first two years of judging, I have almost exclusively judged speech events with debate/congress sprinkled in, however this year I have been judging mostly LD.

I have never gone into a round and found a student I wanted to do poorly. I want you to succeed as much as you want to succeed.

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message:Is your argument well-thought? Is your resolve interesting? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logical way that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading?

Delivery of Message:Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing? Can the judge hear what you are saying without straining?

Evidence of Engagement:Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal:Are you able to use their Value to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank:While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches:Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning:Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum:Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

RP:Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules:Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer:The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Jeff Welty Cedar Ridge High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 2:21 AM EST

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

Emma Wilkinson The Potomac School 6 rounds

Chase Williams Taipei American School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:14 PM EST

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

David Willis Marvin Ridge High School 6 rounds

Frances Yong Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Ella Zhang Cary Academy 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Cavalier Invitational at Durham Academy

2025 — Durham, NC/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

Judges