Tabroom.com

Grapevine Classic

2022 — Grapevine, TX/US

PFD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Wyatt Alpert Oakwood School 2 rounds

Murat Beskok Westlake 3 rounds

Andrew Burgos Elkins High School 5 rounds

Michelle Burgos Elkins High School 5 rounds

Jon-Carlo Canezo St John's School 6 rounds

Avinash Chivakula Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 10, 2022 at 7:45 AM EDT

I am honored to be judging your rounds and look forward to what you all have prepared!!

I have experience on every major circuit in the country in various events. I specialized in extemp, congress, and world schools, but I have experience in and an understanding of every event.

Speech and Debate are the antithesis of complacency, and I expect competitors to represent that by challenging and changing content and arguments throughout the year. Do not get comfortable with the normal. Challenge and change the status quo, and that starts with creativity.

TLDR: Tech>Truth but I have a much lower threshold for blatantly wrong statements.

If you have any questions or advice, simply ask me after the round or email me here: achivakula@gmail.com

LD/CX: I am largely tech over argument, excluding certain situations. I am not opposed to any kritiques or technical arguments, but I am going to weigh and vote off of the arguments and the warrants you provide. I am a strong believer that complicated or convoluted arguments that are conveyed poorly are far worse than a simple arguments conveyed convincingly and strongly. I'm fairly well-read on philosophy, but if you are going to attempt arguments of that vein, you best be prepared to utilize that argument in a rational and pragmatic way.

PF: I want to hear strategic and planned responses that actually signpost where and what the judge and opponents need to pay attention to. Way too many PF rounds become messy, and both sides misconstruing arguments in good or bad faith. If you provide rational impact calculus and extend the right arguments, it will be reflected in my ballot.

Congress: I have spent most of my debate career in congress and extemp, so I know what fluff is and what is real. I do NOT take kindly to excessive theatrics, a lack of clash, and a lack of real content. I also know when your speech is nothing but "rhetoric" versus actual points. I need to see proactive and unique points, especially creativity and risks. As for the PO, I need to see you stand out. All PO's are not created equal, and if you can have a hold over your chamber while being a charming or dynamic competitor, I will thank you and vote you highly. Take risks, don't let this event homogenize into people doing the same thing over and over again.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Performance and presentation matter, and they absolutely will reflect positively on your ranking. However, I see extemp as a mix between speaking and debate. I want to see the content, the link chain, the impact, and the warrants. Tell me why your topic matters, its effects past the direct "what the eye can see", and compare it. Use the skills of persuasion and informing and give me an argument. If you can do that and communicate your point effectively, you are absolutely going to rank highly with me.

World Schools: I absolutely give merit to the content and the arguments here. However, this event gives the opportunity to branch out and address arguments from a much more holistic and broader perspective. Take control of that opportunity. I give a lot of leeway here, but in the end this is world schools. All arguments are fair game for me.

Interp/OO/Info: I follow most of the standard paradigms and norms of the event, and view these events as more so to cater to your preferences than mine. Show me what you got!

Jerry Crist Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 1 rounds

Joseph Donowho Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 5 rounds

Will Erard Hire 5 rounds

Garion Hayden Frankel Hire 11 rounds

Benjamin Geffen Central High School 5 rounds

Eli Glickman College Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 17, 2023 at 10:02 AM EDT

I coach for the College Preparatory School. I debated for two years for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS. In my senior year I won Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegeprepdocs@gmail.com to the email chain. Please label email chains properly. Ex. "TOC R1 F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS."

TL;DR

Tech>truth. Weigh, give me good warranting, and speak as fast as you want. Defense is sticky; first FF may read some new weighing (NOT elaborate weighing… no overviews, prereq analysis, etc.). Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

Tech>truth. I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well. have experience with traditional and progressive. I will vote on the flow.

How I Judge:

If my paradigm is unclear, my favorite judges were Will Sjostrom, Chad Meadows and Marcus Ellinas; anything PF-specific in their paradigms should give you a fairly good idea of how I hope to evaluate the round.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

This is essential; do it.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Don't be rude. Feel free to skip GCX if everyone agrees—both teams get 1min of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too, but blippy NLs from the first rebuttal don't all need to be answered here.

Summary:

First summary only needs to extend turns but should also extend terminal defense if you have time. Defense is sticky, however, I’d prefer for the second summary to extend as much defense as possible. The only new turns or defense I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, treat me like a flay judge in these speeches and my decision becomes a lot easier.

———PART II: TECHNICAL STUFF———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

—Evidence §1—

I will not accept paraphrased evidence. I treat paraphrased cards as equal in link strength to analytics. (You can make a theory argument as to why I shouldn't). If there are two pieces of competing evidence that will determine the round and both teams want me to look at it... I will almost always err on the side of the non-paraphrased evidence. Whether or not you paraphrase, YOU MUST have cut cards, if you don't I will cap your speaks at 27 and you should strike me (27 speaks cap does not apply for MSPF, NPF or JVPF).

—Evidence §2—

When evidence is called for, take less than 1 minutes to pull up the cards or it comes out of your prep.

—Evidence §3—

If you misconstrue evidence—you know who you are—and I find out, I will either drop you or give you the lowest possible speaks, depending on the severity of the misconstruction (I am more than willing to assign an L20 or below). If you catch your opponents misconstruing evidence, call it an independent voting issue (IVI) and I will treat this as a pre-fiat round-ending argument if the evidence is sufficiently misconstrued.

Email Chains:

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. "TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS."

Whether or not the tournament is online I will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp, if you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+) but be clear, if I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 275 words per minute. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (300+ wpm) paraphrased cards there is no way you get above 27 speaks. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational. Before you start make sure I've submitted your speaks.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize the absence of them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see J. Haidt and G. Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind) This means that I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory; I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

I enjoy theory debate; I ran theory frequently. You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory; 'I don't know how to respond' is not a sufficient response. To quote my former partner, "don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments" (saying that is terminal defense against any 'idk how to respond' argument and will result in a 30 for whoever says it).

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

I really like theory. I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.

I default to competing interps and no RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Non-friv theory should be a zero risk issue to check abuse, I will still vote for RVIs if you win them.

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you're speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST need to extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Kritiks:

I have run Ks a few times, however, I am not the best judge for these rounds. I'm more familiar with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism than anything else.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks (unless you have violated any previous clauses related to speaker points), if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.

Lisa Goering Norman North High School 3 rounds

Miguel Harvey L C Anderson High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 29, 2023 at 10:08 AM CDT

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com ; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect.

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

Saad Hossain Hire 5 rounds

Hazel Hughes Demchak Lake Highland Preparatory School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 15, 2020 at 11:19 AM EDT

I am a PF parent, a beginning judge and also a Finance executive (highly analytical, primarily with numbers - but certainly also with issues, evidence and logic). After reading over many other PF judges' paradigms in order to evaluate my own preferences, I'll summarize:

1. Clarity, organization / signposts and flow are critical - remember that I have not heard your particular construction of support for your position before so in order to follow along it needs to be woven together tightly.

2. Evidence and a very sound logical foundation for your case are critical - to me these are table stakes upon which speaking ability and style rest. If big leaps don't make sense, they aren't going to resonate. Sometimes simple and succinct is better than overly complex.

3. PF Debate implies . . . debate - your ability to continuously support your position by really listening to, processing, analyzing and responding (professionally) to your opponents' arguments while demonstrating a very deep and nuanced understanding of the issues will be a key differentiator.

4. "Cute" underdeveloped extensions/arguments wont win with me. To borrow from another judge paradigm "Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event - so do that with some humor and panache.(Bilal Butt)"

SCORING: (also borrowed - thank you Bilal and Mollie Clark)

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Atul Kapoor Jasper High School 2 rounds

Mahintha Karthik Dulles High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon July 25, 2022 at 10:47 AM CDT

westside 2022

utd 2026

add me on the email chain: mkdebate2004@gmail.com

unfamiliar with this topic, would benefit you to explain more

Most important things:

Every argument needs a claim, warrant and impact
Judge instruction is key. The top of the 2ar/2nr should basically tell me what I should be voting on.
I’m not the fastest flower - go about 80% of your usual speed if you want to be sure that I catch everything you say especially for rebuttals
Tech > truth but just because a dropped argument is true, that doesn't mean it wins you the debate unless you explain the implications of why it does
Organized speeches are key to better speaker points
I’m pretty expressive, so if you see me look confused, you might want to explain a little more
I won’t hesitate to give you an L and 25 speaks if you are disrespectful

FW:

Just because I read a lot of k affs when I debated does not mean I will not vote for fw
Clash impacts > fairness impacts
Going for ssd and a well crafted tva will go far in fw debates - flesh it out well enough and actually explain how it solves the aff’s unique impacts instead of just saying “read it on the negative”
Go for presumption! A lot of times it is true against k affs
Impact turns are an underrated strategy against k affs - a well executed impact turn against a k aff will boost your speaks quite a bit

K Affs vs FW:

Impact work is key to winning these debates
A good impact turn to fw is one that can’t be solved by ssd or the tva, but don’t forget to explain why your impact turn outweighs
I prefer when the aff has a compelling c/i to alleviate some concerns about limits exploding and lack of ground, but I am also fine if you just want to completely impact turn fw

Counterplans:

Case specific > generic
I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult.
Don’t like judge kick but if the 2nr says to do it and the 2ar does not respond to that, I guess I will
Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

1nc should be a full argument
Specific and comparative impact calc >>
Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

K vs Policy affs:

The key to both sides winning these debates is explaining everything in depth with examples and analysis
Fw is usually very underdeveloped on both sides. Treat the k fw debate as fw vs a k aff and do a lot of impact work here
Alt usually does not solve - aff teams should capitalize on that
Negative teams should do their best to prove that the alt solves, preferably with many examples
“Perm do both” in the 2ac is not enough. Explain the perm and it’s net benefits

K vs K affs:

These debates are really hard for the negative to execute well because I tend to think that the perm is true which is why there is such a heavy aff side bias
However, this means that a well executed k against a k aff will earn high speaks from me and honestly kvk debates are some of my favorite to see
Biased against no perms in a method debate, but debate it well and I will be fine with it

Theory

Don’t enjoy these debates tbh
Condo is probably good

Topicality

Well executed and specific t debates are cool and fun to watch
High quality definitions are key, especially if it's from a source that's contextual to the topic, has some intent to define, is exclusive and not just inclusive, etc.
Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.

Speaker points

30 = Your performance blew my mind.

29.5+ = I think you belong in late elims.

29+ = I think you should break at this tournament.

28.5 = I think you gave an average high school debate performance.

>28 = I think you demonstrated deficiencies in core competencies.

David Kennedy Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 5 rounds

Nate Kruger Oakwood School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 18, 2023 at 7:48 AM EDT

NOTE FOR BERKELEY: IF YOU MEOW AT MY CAT AND SHE MEOWS BACK YOU GET A 30. IDK IF SHE WILL SHE DOES LIKE HALF THE TIME. UP TO YOU IF YOU WANNA TAKE THAT RISK

hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. natenyg@gmail.com facebook.com/nate.nyg

he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)

i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I was a 2n at wake forest for 2 years where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda. i did pf my freshman year, so i'm familiar, but don't assume i know every single thing about the activity and its conventions.

i'm willing to vote on anything and am purely tab with the caveat of intervening against oppressive argumentation. if you're reading theory or k's in pf, i'd vote on it, but please make an effort to make your arguments accessible to your opponents -- pf has not entirely adapted to new norms and if you don't try to adapt your arguments to pf and instead just assume your opponents will know your exact format and everything i'll be annoyed and speaks will suffer. bad theory and k debates are lame, frivolous theory in pf is probably the stupidest thing i can think of lol

oh also i'm judging policy now lol -- what i said above is still true -- was a 2n at wake, haven't debated in like a year, my partner and i quartered ceda reading black feminist lit on the aff and cap on the neg, that's a pretty good indicator i think of the types of arguments i enjoy voting on and judging the most. i'll judge a policy round if you want to have it obviously, i also have been coaching pf 2 years now so my ears are at least a little more attuned to util impacts than previously. in the same way that critical teams are expected to justify why they are moving away from the topic, i believe policy teams should be justifying why they are choosing to debate the topic in clash rounds -- this doesn't mean i'll hack for Ks -- it just means that the same standards apply because i view topicality/its reading as a speech act and i'm not sure why the fact that a speech act is also a procedural would mean i should disregard its implications or its context. that being said, my sophomore year my partner and I won R1 at the season opener reading disclosure, i'm willing to vote on whatever. if you're racist or talk down to women or misgender your opponent or do some other messed up stuff without both making good faith attempts to repair the potential for a safe debate and apologizing without reservation for said messed up act you will get an L20. one time my partner and i debated this guy who would only respectfully talk to me and refused to listen to her whatsoever, talking over her constantly. when we called him on it he said it was because of his adhd and then kept doing it (as a psych major i have never heard of adhd that only appears when you're talking to women!). please use that as an example of what NOT to do.

in the same way i try to hold policy teams to higher standards -- if you're reading a k -- i'm not just gonna hack. justify why the aff is necessary in debate, this round particularly, what my ballot does, make and justify spill up claims, have an awesome theory of power, make material arguments (the best thing i ever learned as a debater is how to read cap links that are 100% disads to the aff -- do that)

good luck have a great round hope it's fun feel free to ask me any questions i am happy to answer them

if you're curious -- my thoughts on debate right now are most influenced by asya taylor, darius white, jacob smith, and the wake coaches who read Ks when they debated (jgreen also)

for k teams -- i am in big support of high schoolers reading k's, i think it's super educational and definitely made me a lot of who i am now (ew. hate typing out that debate made me part of who i am, kinda gross), in support of that practice please feel free to after rounds ask me any random questions you have about lit or strategy, even if it's not related to the round you just had -- i'll do my best to give you some help! it's my understanding these tournaments are designed in part to increase debate access/let teams that might not otherwise get to too many nat circuit tournaments attend -- i coach a lot and have worked at ld camps the past few summers, i also understand wake has a very genius/expensive coaching staff and would be happy to redistribute some of what i've learned from debating here down because truthfully the coaches here are incredible and it should not just be a few debaters at random colleges getting their knowledge!!

Nicholas Lewis Shepton High School 3 rounds

Sergio Martinez Oakwood School 2 rounds

Thomas Mathai Jasper High School 4 rounds

Rachel Mauchline Cabot High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 18, 2023 at 10:13 AM CDT

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Cale McCrary Westlake 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 29, 2023 at 10:53 AM CDT

cale.debate@gmail.com works, but prefer SpeechDrop

i coach some and am a director at vbi

former director at westlake & corona del sol

mostly judged/coached ld the past 2 seasons, pf before that.

overall:

i'm cool with anything you read, and any speed you go, as long as you are clear, signpost well, and keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone :)

ld:

1- policy, T/theory, cap

2- setcol, non-phil tricks

3- other Ks

strike- phil, trad, pomo Ks

policy: default judge kick. lean neg on cp theory claims, prefer affs substantively engage with the cp unless the abuse is egregious. cool w cheaty cps. 3 word perms aren't arguments. i <3 well executed impact turn debates.

theory: default competing interps, yes rvis, dtd, T>theory>rest, but idc ill change any of that. will entertain late restarts just pretty please send interps. speaks boost for shells in doc + slowing down for extemped shells/analytics :)

K: cap is my comfort lit base, so i'll be open to niche stuff, 1ac strats, and all impact turns. i'm also v comfortable with setcol, securitization, and ir-centric Ks. beyond that, my in-depth understanding is more limited, but i still often vote for these positions. just please especially actually resolve the lbl: far too many K 2n and 2ars are vaguely cross applying the overview everywhere in a way that hurts my head.

tricks: i can deal given they're not phil-adjacent, are clearly delineated in the doc, and you're willing to identify independent reasons to vote in cx if asked. that means i'm not the right judge for stuff hidden in the cut of a card, a full-force nailbomb 1ac, or a bunch of indexicals. i am the right judge for a standard truth testing 1ac, skep triggers, and common aprioris delineated in the 1ac text. if you think there's a risk it's phil-adjacent, prob just don't do it.

pf:

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, extend defense the speech after its answered, and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument.

come to rd ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending, etc)

Muhammed Memon Hire 5 rounds

Keith Milstead Hebron High School 6 rounds

Kapil Nikhra Centennial HS 6 rounds

Andrew Paulson Westlake 5 rounds

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 22, 2023 at 9:21 AM CDT

Rice University Classic/NPDA Paradigm 9/22:

I'm Bryce - I debated for and ran the University of Minnesota Parliamentary Debate Team when I was in college and graduated in 2020. I am now the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. My full time job is speech and debate, but at the high school level, not the college level. My HS team competes in all of the events, but our largest squads are doing national circuit HS Public Forum and Congressional Debate. We mostly do UIL (local TX) CX, rather than national circuit HS Policy. I judged a couple of NPDA rounds at Rice last year and hadn't judged before that since McKendree 2020/NPDA 2021. I'm back to cover McKendree's judge obligation at Rice and I'm helping them in the prep room for the tournament.

As many judges do, I will do my best to evaluate whatever round the debaters in the room want to have. I will not be upset at, or outright reject, nearly any non-"ist" thing you do in a round. So, if you would prefer to have a round that goes against the below listed preferences, I'm going to appreciate and respect you all the same: I just might view the round differently than you do, and I think that's okay if you're okay with it.

That said, as many judges do, I have preferences for what I like to see and what I think makes for a good round. Here are some of those thoughts:

Cowardice is a voting issue. Debate to win and be bold.
When I debated, I primarily read topical affirmatives and went for (very silly) theory/topicality arguments, topical DA/CP strategies, and the Cap K most commonly on the negative.
I would prefer the affirmative be related to the topic in some way (does not have to be USFG/fiat/etc, but you should be prepared to defend your method) and I probably err negative in an evenly debated T-FW vs non-topical aff round.
I would prefer that advocacies defend something material and for advocacies to clearly delineate what that material thing is - I am more compelled by "you don't do anything, so vote neg on presumption" than many other judges.
I would prefer your arguments be as specific as possible - I like excellent warrants and small but deep debates rather than LOs reading 7 off and MGs reading theory.
I like reading evidence and hearing evidence comparison in HS debate rounds I judge. Examples are evidence in NPDA - for every claim or logical warrant, you ought to have an example to explain how the thing you say is true has been empirically proven or otherwise validated in real life.
When making decisions, I primarily decide rounds in terms of which impacts each side best solves. Does the plan or the counterplan solve war with Russia? Does the interp or the counter-interp control the best link into limits? Judge instruction, impact calculus, and link comparison goes a long way in close debates.
I like LO strategies that spend lots of time on case.
While I think that what you say in a debate round matters and that debate trains some cool skills, I find the technical aspect of the game more interesting and I'm more concerned about you making good strategic decisions to try to win the debate.
The affirmative may always read a permutation. I have never understood the "no perms in a methods debate" argument despite going for it myself sometimes.
The status quo is always an option. If I think the CP or K is less desirable than the plan, I will evaluate the status quo/DA versus the plan unless instructed otherwise.
If a team wins some "we meet" articulation on theory, it's terminal defense and the rest of the sheet of paper almost certainly does not matter. I do not understand the concept of a "risk of a violation."
I am willing to vote on terminal defense to an interp or offense based on poorly-worded interps.
I am willing to vote on terminal defense in general. This would mean the round has gone very sideways indeed.

Here are some other NPDA-specific quirks and preferences you may find useful to know:

I'm fine with you calling points of order and indeed would prefer you do if you think an argument is new. Unless I'm on a panel and another judge would prefer I not rule, I will rule on the point of order.
I have never seen a good LOC that was more than 3 off and case.
Unless instructed otherwise, each of the following positions will get their own sheet of paper: plan text/solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, theory interpretations, framework arguments (not impact framing), kritiks minus the alternative, and the alternative itself. I'd prefer you give the order with this in mind - i.e., don't say "the aff," say "plan text, advantage 1, advantage 2"; don't say "the K," say "the alt, then the rest of the K".
Please read all plan texts, interpretations, etc. slowly and twice, and provide a written copy for both opponents and myself. I will use the written text of the plan/CP/interp to decide arguments based on what the plan/CP/interp is, not what was said. If I think there is a discrepancy between what I have flowed and what has been written down, I will verbally clarify before starting flex/the next speech.
The lack of a backside rebuttal in NPDA = the MO should probably not be making new arguments. New MO arguments = new PMR golden answers, including golden turns, offense, theory.
I will almost certainly flow the LOR on a new sheet of paper. I will flow the PMR on each sheet of the debate, next to the arguments the MO made. The LOR's framing claims will inform and break ties between the MO and the PMR.

I have my full high school paradigm below, should you care to read more. Ask me other questions before the debate and I am happy to answer them, provided they were not answered above.

---

Overhauled on 7/19/2023 for PFBC and the 2023-24 competitive season

Who am I?

Pronouns: he/him/his

Here's my experience. This largely does not matter, but it might help you get a sense of how I think about arguments and where I'm coming from before the round:

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp, Minneapolis, MN: September 2021 - Present

Director of Speech and Debate, Seven Lakes HS, Katy, TX: August 2021 - Present

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate, Seven Lakes HS, Katy, TX: August 2020 - July 2021

Assistant Debate Coach, The Lakeville Debate Team, Lakeville, MN: September 2016 - August 2020

NPDA/NPTE Parliamentary Debate, University of Minnesota: November 2016 - March 2020

Public Forum Debate and Congressional Debate, JMM/Vel Phillips Memorial, Madison, WI: September 2014 - June 2016

Additionally, I serve on the PF Wording Committee for the NSDA. Your feelings on the current PF topic are partially my doing. If you would like to influence me one way or another, please feel free to email me or submit topic suggestions to the NSDA at speechanddebate.org/topics.

General Thoughts

This will be my 10th full year involved with speech and debate. I still absolutely love the activity, and I'm finding new depths to all aspects of speech and debate with each passing year.

Speech and debate is an inherently competitive activity grounded in vital critical thinking skills, including the skills of reading, writing, research, public speaking, logic, argumentation, and persuasion. The best competitors, no matter the event or arguments being made in the round, are excellent at all of these vital critical thinking skills, and more. The further away from being a competitor I get, the more I care about the educational and life-enriching qualities of speech and debate, and the less I care about the pure drive to win a tournament (though that still matters to me a great deal).

I have no strong preferences on the arguments that you make in the round, and I will evaluate any round based primarily on the technical skill exhibited by the competitors in the round. That said, I find it more enjoyable to vote for those competitors whose arguments are clearly excellently researched, written, and considered before the round.

My biggest non-negotiable rule is that you treat the community that you have voluntarily chosen to take part in with respect. Be kind to your opponents, your teammates, your coaches, tournament staff and volunteers, your judges, and (least importantly) me. While I firmly believe that speech and debate is vitally important, it's all an elaborate game at the end of the day, and I think you should treat the other players in the game as kindly as possible. If you intend on making the round unpleasant, either through poorly considered research skills, poorly considered in-round strategy, or poorly considered behavior, do us both a favor and strike me.

You should debate to win, and have fun doing it.

Debate

I don't think there is a big enough difference between debate formats to necessitate different paradigms for PF, LD, and CX. I think good debate is always good debate. Good debate should come from well-considered positions constructed from good evidence and presented in an entertaining, persuasive, and thoughtful manner.

Please create an email chain. Put bryce.piotrowski@gmail.com on the email chain, along with the corresponding Seven Lakes Google Group, depending on what format I'm judging: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes + sides of each team. This helps me keep email chains organized, which I frequently go through after tournaments to review arguments and evidence made at tournaments. Please create the email chain as soon as humanly possible, even (especially) if I am not yet at the room or if your flight has not started. Please be ready to debate at the round start time.

Evidence read in a debate should be able to withstand scrutiny well after the round is over. If you have read the above paragraph and are uncomfortable creating an email chain because I am going to "steal your prep" or "prep you out," I would invite you to consider what your ideal evidentiary standards in debate look like and whether the norms of distorting evidence beyond recognition, withholding evidence from opponents (even when that evidence is requested), being unable to produce the original copy or a cut card of evidence upon request, lying to opponents about evidence or source quality, or intentionally misleading opponents as to which evidence was read at a point in the debate truly lead to better debates, or whether they are a tool that you are attempting to use to gain a competitive advantage on questionably ethical grounds. If you feel called out by any of this, I'm a bad judge for you, and you should strike me.

At a minimum, you must follow the NSDA rules regarding evidence citation and its exchange. If you do not do that, I reserve the right to vote against you if I feel the violation is egregious enough, regardless of whether or not your opponents make an argument that you should lose because of your representation of evidence.

I would strongly prefer that evidence is read in the format of a cut card when first presented, and that you send a document containing all of the cards that you have read, in order, either immediately before or immediately after the end of your speech. I do not need anything that is not carded evidence other than plan texts or theory/topicality interpretations. If you refuse to share carded evidence with your opponents for any reason, including being "unable to find the card," I will vote against you -- that is a violation of the NSDA's rules regarding evidence exchange, and an exceptionally shady practice that I wish to punish with my ballot.

All things being equal, I would prefer that you read fewer individual cards and read more warrants from better cards. The trend towards reading a new piece of evidence every 10 seconds is antithetical to my request for well-considered and researched positions.

I will flow the debate carefully. Sometimes, I flow on paper, and sometimes, I flow on my laptop. My preferred rate of delivery is a quick conversation, but I can flow faster debates, and I will not feel bored by slower debates. My issues with rate of delivery typically stem from the fact that as rate increases, clarity often decreases, and I end up missing things. I will make every attempt to keep up with you and flow what I can understand from your speech. I will not read the speech document to fill in warrants or cards that I have missed. If you don't see me writing or typing for an extended period of time, it's because I can't understand you for some reason, and you should slow down or speak more clearly.

I would prefer to vote for arguments that in some way center a discussion of the topic. This is very open to the interpretation of the debaters in the rounds, and I will not dogmatically ignore certain content because "I don't want to hear it." I am frequently entertained and delighted by well-researched critical positions on both the affirmative and negative, huge extinction impacts, soft left high probability impacts, and everything in between. However, the more that your position could be copy-pasted from one month's file to the next, the less likely I will be to enjoy listening to it.

The above paragraph also encompasses my thoughts on theory, particularly in PF and LD. Most theory debates end up being tired and recycled, with debaters deploying these strategies with little regard for their applicability to the debate at hand. I'll vote on it, but I would be more enthused if you would pick a more interesting strategy, and your speaker points will probably suffer. That said, if you're reading theory in a way that contextualizes a specific violation to this particular round or position your opponents are reading, I will be far more interested in what you have to say. I have a soft spot for reasonability claims and creative we meet arguments from teams that may be technically losing theory, but probably have not done anything wrong. In short - if you have a different strategy, I'd probably prefer to hear that.

Topicality is different than theory, because it involves the affirmative's specific advocacy. I'm more than fine to listen to these debates. I'm a sucker for excellent, clever, and context-specific interpretations, and typically decide these debates based on questions of ground quality and quantity for each team.

Regardless of which strategy you choose to employ, you always need a link and an impact to win the debate. This also means that all advocacies, plan texts, etc., should advocate for something to happen and should defend the material consequences of that thing happening. Teams should debate the solvency of the advocacy more.

It will dramatically help you to spend a lot of time in the last couple of speeches explaining why the links and impacts you have chosen are the arguments that will win the debate, rather than just arguments that could win the debate, through evidence comparison, weighing, and impact calculus.

I will time the debate, generally on an analog timer that will beep when your time is up. I will flow everything that you say up until the timer beeps. You are free to keep talking after the timer goes off, but it will not go on my flow. If you keep talking for a ridiculously long time after the timer goes off, I will probably cut you off and act annoyed. I will also time cross-x and prep time. Please clearly tell me when you are starting and stopping prep time. Timer shenanigans will result in decreased speaker points.

Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing the round's result (UIL, NSDA Nationals, etc.), I will disclose my decision and what set of arguments led me to that decision at the conclusion of the round, in as much detail as I possibly can fit into the time I have to render and deliver a decision. You are always welcome to ask additional questions at any time, as long as you're being reasonable and respectful.

Congress

Most of my thoughts on debate, above, apply here. Congress is best when speakers engage in a deep debate on the couple of issues of clash that are most obviously presented by the legislation that is presently being debated. Think of yourself as "working with" speakers on your side and "against" opposing speakers to advance debate on the item on the floor.

I am more interested in hearing the round progress as a PF, LD, or CX round would. That means the first couple of speeches should set up constructive arguments, the middle couple of speeches should introduce lots of refutation and extension of arguments that came before them, and the later couple of speeches should synthesize the arguments made on the item and paint a compelling picture as to why each side has overall won the debate. If we're getting to the 6th or 7th cycle of debate, you would probably do better to save your precedence for the next item up for debate.

In general, I think Congress should debate more bills and have fewer cycles of debate on each bill. I also think Congress would be way better if each chamber was run more similar to a speech tournament - with each round having 10 competitors, 1 or 2 adults serving as the PO and scorers, and each round having a single specified item that everyone gives one speech on. I think this would standardize the role of each speech across each cycle of debate, eliminate the randomness and unfairness of scoring a PO alongside speakers, and ensure all students were scored based on a roughly equal amount of participation in the round.

If you're the PO and I have to score you as a speaker: you'll start as my 5. A PO will improve if I think debate in the chamber is bad, they have clear and consistent procedures for recognizing speakers, questioners, and motions, and if they minimize delays to facilitate the most debate possible. The PO will be harmed if there are many excellent speakers, making it difficult for them to stand out, or their procedures are inconsistent or unclear.

Delivery is secondary to content, but can still influence your rank, especially when poor delivery makes it difficult to follow your content.

Please do not yell at or over each other during questioning.

Speech:

I do not have a strong preference on what you're bringing to the table with your piece, and I doubt that you're going to change much because I'm on your panel. That's more than fine. You do you, and I'll evaluate it and try to leave my thoughts and helpful feedback.

I come from a debate background, where truth often goes out the window and I'm evaluating arguments as close to a blank slate as possible. I will likely be evaluating the technical merits of your piece more than other judges you might have (e.g., blocking, precise rhetoric, structure of a body point, etc.) and using those to determine my ranks more than some big picture stuff (e.g., how did it make me feel, do I think your piece is 'important', etc.)

I am more familiar and comfortable judging public address events (Extemp, Oratory, Informative) than Interp. I have no theater or acting background. That said, one of my favorite speech events to judge is POI - it's all of the best parts of interp combined with the research and argument synthesis of debate.

If you're in Extemp, follow this checklist: explain why the question is important to ask, answer the question, explain why your answer is the best answer to the question and not just ananswer to the question, and make good arguments. Everything else is secondary.

Katelynn Shadman Colleyville Heritage High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 17, 2022 at 11:42 AM CDT

please put me on the email chain: katelynne.shad@gmail.com

Colleyville Heritage HS '20: 4 years PF (tfa and nat circuit), (some experience in WSD and LD)

University of Oklahoma '24: currently doing ~policy~

pronouns: she/her/hers

tl;dr

do whatever you want, i vote on the flow. your barrier to speed is your opponent (if they can’t handle it don’t do it). please warrant and weigh your arg and terminalize your impacts — if you do this you will most likely win. 2nd rebuttal should frontline, if they don’t defense is sticky in 1st summary. if it’s in final it needs to be in summary. have good evidence ethics.

come in pre flowed and send the email chain at the start time

for roadmaps: just tell me which piece of paper to have on top

welcome to my paradigm:

*before your speech, pls just tell me what piece of paper to start on and I'll follow you from there

Warrant, Weigh, Win- it's that simple.

- it needs to be on the flow, I need clean extensions and weighing if you want me to vote on it

(please weigh. please, please, please weigh)

- for it to be an extension, I need claim, warrant, and impact

- tell me why/how you're winning and why your argument matters (write my ballot for me)

- terminalize impacts

- please come in pre-flowed and prepared to debate (i want to start the round asap)

- speech doc/email chain should be sent at the start time of the round (or earlier, just not later)

- signpost, I want to write down all of your wonderful arguments (in the right places)

- speed: i don't care how fast you go, know your opponent (if they can't handle the speed -- don't go fast, if they don't have experience flowing off speech docs, this isn't the round for them to learn), if you're going to go sicko mode, give me a doc, otherwise, I flow on paper if I'm not writing stuff down, slow down

how to get more speaks:

+1 speaker points if you create an email chain AND USE IT PROPERLY ie. send all cut cards before every speech, (send an edited version after if you do something different), analytics are a good thing to send too but I'll still give you the extra speaks

pf specific:

- quality > quantity

- tech > truth

- default util

- I don't like calling for ev. you should be doing the ev analysis yourselves, ie. compare the ev between speeches then say it in the speech (I won't vote on it if it's not on the flow)

rebuttal:

- 1st rebuttal shouldn't be doing case extensions (unless it's an ov, fw, or weighing you want flowed on your case), i already got the args from case, it's just repetitive

- 2nd rebuttal: pls frontline offense

summary:

- if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, defense is not sticky

- if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, defense is sticky

- please weigh (pls, pls, pls)

final focus:

- final focus should mirror the summary (if it's not in the summary it shouldn't be in final) (weighing should also be the same)

- PLEASE DON'T GO FOR EVERYTHING, collapse and narrow down the debate

crossfire:

- start whenever y'all are ready, don't wait on me

- yes we can skip grand cross (#abolishgrandcross) (you can exchange it for 1 minute of prep, not each, it's a trade off)

progressive args

*new section coming soon

evidence: (enjoy this cute little rant)

sparknotes version: don't do anything stupid and don't take forever to pull up evidence, evidence should be cut properly and cited with a working link, if your opponents are doing something bad/sketch with ev make it a voting issue I AM VERY LIKELY TO VOTE ON IT (if it's legit)

evidence ethics (10 minute version) (katelynne's version)

I literally don't understand why evidence ethics are so bad. Just make an email chain and send all the evidence you're reading before every speech, it's not hard and cx/ld have been doing it forever, it doesn't put you behind. Also, if for some reason you choose to make the round harder and take more time by not doing an email chain please do not take long to pull up your evidence. I really don't want to set a time limit so just don't take 10 minutes to pull up evidence. The standard should be: if you read it in the speech, expect it to be called (so have the cut card with link and cites ready to go).

If you have any questions about what to do in terms of presenting evidence, I have linked the NSDA rules below. I will at least give you 25s for a violation. If your opponents are in violation, make it a voting issue, no cap. I will vote them down.

- if you do make it a voting issue, i will call for the evidence in question to make sure there is an actual violation (please don't think it's game over for you if someone calls you out for bad evidence but it's actually legit)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/HS-Unified-Manual-2019-2020.pdf (command f "7.1")

- I need cut cards with (at least) a link to the full article

- I know this is a lot but there are too many debaters trying to cheat the system with bad evidence and I just want to make it crystal clear how I am judging rounds

Other people I try to judge like/influenced my debate style:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=11589

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=25898

policy influence:

debate bestie- https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=100821

current coach- https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6406

Gabrielle Smith Gulliver Prep 5 rounds

Jeffrey Song Seven Lakes High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 8, 2023 at 11:52 AM CDT

Hi! My name is Jeffrey Song and I did some PF in high school but at the end of the day, I am just a goofy little boy!

he/him/his

Things:

No yelling, I have very sensitive ears and I don't want this to devolve into a shouting match. Please be respectful!
No racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Will result in auto-down :/
Go as fast as you want!
Smile :)
Saying "nu uh" in cross
Low diff rounds :(
I <3 larping

The @: jffrsong@gmail.com

Additionally,

1) Guiding Principles and General Beliefs

I firmly believe that debate is a competitive game grounded in important research, critical thinking, and argumentation skills, and that the competitive nature of debate is something to be embraced, not rejected. Debaters who work hard to be the best will have a better chance of winning my ballot: this means both before the round, through thoughtful, in-depth research, during the round, through excellent strategic decision making, and after the round, where I am open to discussions with both teams about how to improve for the future.

I will carefully flow the debate and make a decision based on what I’ve flowed for the team I believe has done the better technical debating. Compared to other judges, I think that I need teams to do more impact comparison and internal link analysis to win an argument that I consider a voting issue. I will do my best to not intervene during my decision: this practically means that I want more in-depth warranting for arguments you think are voting issues.

2) Public Forum

A. General Thoughts

I keep a tight flow and will make decisions primarily based on content and strategy rather than style or presentation. I will give more weight to arguments that are grounded in solid evidence, are excellently warranted when first presented, and fully developed during the back half of the round. In short, I will try to intervene as little as possible, and I am theoretically willing to vote on any argument.

I have no preference on the construction of your cases, but I’ve noticed that cases constructed with cut cards, or those that directly quote evidence, are generally more persuasive than cases constructed via paraphrasing evidence, normally because the paraphrasing sacrifices warrants for additional claims. First crossfire should begin to deal with framing questions and start to center in on the central questions in the debate, setting up the rebuttal.

Second rebuttal should begin to condense the round. I expect that it answers the first rebuttal to enough of an extent that I could reasonably see what you could go for in summary. While there are some cases where the second rebuttal should go for all arguments in the debate, those are rare - generally speaking, I think that the first speaking team comes out ahead when that happens. I find myself voting for teams that more aggressively condense the round more often than teams that go for every single argument, though this is not a hard and fast rule.

Second summary is too late to make new arguments to anything in the first rebuttal speech, including defensive arguments. Obviously, anything that you want me to vote on must be in both the summary and final focus speeches. Similarly, final focus speeches which focus on detailed comparison of a couple of arguments rather than going for many arguments generally win my ballot more often. I generally think that the earlier you begin weighing arguments, the more compelling they are by the end of the round.

If you do not give a significant amount of attention to your evidence's quality, you should consider striking me. The representation and quality of your evidence is very important to me, and ethical violations related to evidence may be a voting issue, even if your opponent does not call you out. In practice, however, I am hesitant to vote against a team if the piece of evidence that I think is questionable was not a) explicitly called out by the other team and b) does not make a substantive difference in my decision. Please make my job easy and call out garbage evidence so that it doesn't feel like I have to intervene to vote against it: though I reserve the right to do so, if I think it's warranted.

B. Critical Arguments

I am amenable to the recent trend of more critical argumentation in PF debate and I will happily vote on well-researched critical strategies in many different forms. That said, I think that these strategies have been executed relatively poorly when I have seen them. Too many teams are relying on arguments which I think are, functionally, “we talked about x group of people or y concept and therefore you should vote for us purely due to our ‘pre-fiat, discourse’ impacts” which I find incredibly unpersuasive. While I think that discussions rooted in critical literature are important and welcome in PF, your initiation of that discussion alone is generally insufficient for me to vote for you. You still need an impact to win the debate, and I will still be weighing your arguments versus your opponents in an offense/defense paradigm to determine the winner of the round. In other words, I do not think that "spreading awareness" or "discourse" is a terminal impact.

If you would like to use the round for a friendly discussion between both teams of some kind of oppression, that's fine. I won't take anything away from your decision to use the space as you see fit. But, my job as a judge is to adjudicate debates and award a winner, loser, and speaker points. If a team concedes the debate, I will select a winner, award speaker points based on the quality of debating done by each side, submit my ballot, and may choose to leave the room. If either team would like to ask me brief questions, as during a normal RFD, I will be happy to entertain those questions, but at this point in Public Forum's evolution, I believe that the time spent on the vast majority of these friendly discussions would be better spent having a debate about the issues raised during these discussions.

C. Theory:

I strongly dislike judging most theory debates in PF, and I would prefer to hear a debate about the topic than a theory debate, but I'm willing to grit my teeth and vote for you if it's warranted. I will evaluate theory debates through an offense-defense paradigm: the same way I would evaluate any other argument. I find theory with a clear violation and abuse story more compelling - it is an uphill battle to get me to vote on purely potential abuse rather than proven abuse if the other team makes a compelling we meet or reasonability argument. I probably think that reasonability arguments are more persuasive than most of my judge peers.

I am only interested in impacts to fairness/access and education filtered through the lens of endorsing a given interpretation. When answering theory, keep in mind that I am exceedingly unlikely to vote on arguments based on the socioeconomic status of one or both teams or arguments that assert that theory "does not belong" in Public Forum.

I personally believe that disclosure on the national circuit is generally good and paraphrasing is generally bad. I will not hack for these arguments, though it will be a severe uphill battle to win “paraphrasing good” in front of me.

For a variety of reasons, I cannot stand judging disclosure theory debates: initiating such a debate will cap your speaker points at 25. I'll still vote on the argument if I think you win the debate, but I find these debates totally mind-numbing, and would rather hear a debate about literally anything else. If you don’t like theory, I recommend disclosing and reading from cut cards or at least representing your evidence well.

D. Pet Peeves

Long off time roadmaps, blippy or unwarranted arguments that are magically expanded in later speeches, "cards" which are a sentence long strung together as a series of claims, aggressive/loud crossfire with a lot of cross talk, grand crossfire generally, dismissing arguments as "improbable" without warranting that argument, taking more than a minute to send evidence.

If you have other questions, please ask before the round either in the room or via an email. I am happy to clarify anything you think is insufficiently explained above.

E. Final Thoughts

Cowardice is a voting issue.

Case debate is a lost art. Spending 4 minutes on case on the LOC = happier Jeffrey. Have I included that like 4 times in my paradigm? Absolutely.

I probably give defensive arguments more weight than the average judge. Compelling terminal defense can play a very significant factor in my decision.

I think teams make too many bad arguments and should spend more time developing better ones. This doesn’t mean don’t go fast – it means spend more time developing better arguments than bad short ones.

I will look to the written text of your advocacy if it becomes relevant for any reason, i.e. a T interp, plan flaw, etc.

The aff can always read a permutation. Obviously, they have to justify how the perm works in the round, but I don't think there are certain types of debates or rounds where the aff can't perm.

Ask me about my AK account

Thank you for reading this goofy little boy's paradigm!

Gabriel Thome Hire 3 rounds

maude thooris Plano East Sr. High 3 rounds

Nahom Tulu Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon May 29, 2023 at 3:54 PM EDT

Selam, I'm Nahom

** i will auto down any black trauma centered cases (if ur not black) reading stru viol arguments is fine and implicating racism as an impact is great but dont spell out trauma for shock value**

I debated at Hendrickson for my last 2 yrs of highschool

tech>truth (but pls dont abuse this)

Frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal if u wanna go for it

Defense is sticky

2nd summary frontlining threshold is high, if ur partner doesn't frontline defense in rebuttal that's fine, but that means ur frontlining must be INSANE, 99% of the time I wont accept it.

Preferences: pls dont read trix imma be so lost, theory is fine if theirs a real abuse, disclosure hurts small schools, paraphrase at ur own discretion, but if its abusive then im down to vote of the T

not super familiar with K's but if it makes sense ill be down to vote off it

speeds fine for me, dont ignore judges paradigms that say not too fast. If your opponents ask for one, give it to them idc how fast ur going, they may need it for personal reasons.

Clash is cool but I have a soft place in my heart for unique args (not squirrely, theirs a difference) also pls weigh like crazy, and implicate everything

Summary is the most important speech in the round, FF is just for show, unless yall messed up in this round, I shud have my decision by summary, provided both sides weigh/frame the round, otherwise one of yall will think im judge screwing

sum other tips

1. be nice in rounds, rip em a new one all u want, but make sure they're giving u the same energy or u just look dum, I like a nice aggressive crossfire, but walk the line between destroying someone's args and destroying their sense of self carefully, bc (from experience) its a dangerous tightrope that you may not want to walk

2. EXTEND WARRANTS, frontlines are not extensions

3. Weighing/Framing OV in rebuttals r super strategic weight bc it'll make me happy, and tbh even if ur barely accessing an arg, if u win weighing that says its the most important, U WIN... for the most part (be careful bc this is diff from other PF debaters that prefer cleaner extensions over weighing strats and link ins)

4. Concede the small things to win the narrative, stats don't matter if ur narrative is bomb, evidence debates are boring, which means if u make it an ev debate I will make the standard for good ev rlly rlly high, and if neither of you have offense speaks will tank and I will default to whatever team i want to

4. Pls be funny, humor is ur greatest tool, joking around in cross and making ur opponents look dum is v enjoyable esp when ur opponents r being rlly aggressive.

5. Any isms (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc) = u lose + i tank ur speaks + i tattle to ur coach

6. Don't be buttholes with theory, ill know if ur just tryna win a round rather then effectively create change, and ill hate u for it. Also dont be hypocritical with theory, idc what ur shell says if u didnt disclose at every round ever on the wiki u better not read disclosure later that year (*cough cough* reading disclosure at the TOC for the first time ever), no shot im buying it.

7. Do NOT, and I'll repeat this to make sure this is super clear, DO NOT read structural violence-based arguments without a clear, nuanced and thoughtful understanding of the oppression that exists. I will never accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this, logic-based warranting is key; for your own sake do not assume my political views/skin color will make me any more attracted to these types of arguments, in fact, I would very much rather prefer you have no understanding of the issues and not read this argument than have a shallow understanding and read these types of arguments. If I sense BS you better believe I will call you out on it.

8. Take risks, ill reward it (collapsing on a turn)

9. Have fuuunsies, debate is a game, winning and losing r aspects of the game, dont take it to seriously, just enjoy urself in the moment and be respectful of one another

if u wanna talk/postround/add me to the chain my email is: tulu.nahom@gmail.com

Kishore Vattikuti BASIS Peoria 5 rounds

Xiaoling Wang Centennial HS 6 rounds None

Christopher Wright Centennial HS 3 rounds

Sanjitha Yedavalli Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 9, 2022 at 3:01 PM CST

hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.

1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

2. defense is sticky

3. PLEASE signpost. I will cry if you don't.

4. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.

5. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.

6. I try to flow all the card names but I usually just end up flowing the argument only. That being said, don't extend by saying "extend the Smith card", you will need to repeat the actual argument.

7. I'm fine with speed. if you think it's going to be rlly fast, just send me your speech doc before just so we avoid any issues

Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.

Theory: I will probably never vote off of it, especially if it is paraphrase or disclosure theory. If you are gonna run it in front of me, make sure you do a good job and thoroughly explain your argument.

Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to the lit. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. Clearly explain why this matters and why I should be voting off of it. Also highly unlikely that I will vote off of it.

Structural Violence Frameworks/Args: Don't read structural violence arguments without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists. I do not accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this. Warranting is key. Do not assume my political views because of my looks. Don't use the oppression of others as a tactic to win a debate round. I will call you out if I sense any bs.

I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.

Please make crossfire bearable. I don't want to be falling asleep so use humor or be aggressive (but not too aggressive to the point where you're just being a dick)

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round begins.

If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at sanjitha.y@gmail.com

Sasha Young Vines High School 3 rounds None

Login to Tabroom:

Grapevine Classic

2022 — Grapevine, TX/US

PFD Paradigm List

Judges