Hello! My name is Emily

Please add me to the email chain @iimoonlightplaysii@gmail.com

I prefer tech>truth

Please extend arguments, weigh, and have an equal amount of defense and offense. I don't want to see the debate being one sided

W30 or L29 speakers

Please remember to have fun!!

Hi! I'm Kyson, a policy/LD debater from Millard North High School.

Add me on any email chains: kysonbloomingdale@gmail.com

Note for Middle School Debate- Please extend your arguments and do comparative weighing using timeframe/magnitude/probability. Otherwise, I have to do the work for you (or default to your opponent's argument), which you don't want.

If I missed something, please ask me questions before the round starts.

Top line I'll vote on any argument that isn't doing an -ism. I want to hear you read what you love to read. If you are reading something dense like Pomo Ks or phil please explain like I'm 5; if I don't understand your argument at the end of the round I won't feel comfortable voting on it.

If your opponent is reading something borderline abusive (like spamming tricks), I'll be very sympathetic to a theory shell against it (just win the flow on it).

Good with speed but please slow down on analytics off-doc.If you go full speed on off-doc analytics, you risk me not catching all of them.

Please give good judge instruction: Your last rebuttal should start with literally writing my RFD: "Your RFD is that you vote aff because....)"

Prefs based on how comfortable I feel evaluating the debate (don't let this prevent you from reading but just be warned stuff towards the bottom you'll need to flesh them out clearer; like I said, explain like I'm 5)

1- Theory, all LARP (impact turns, process cps, go for it), basic Ks (cap, set col, etc), trad

2- Simple phil, Kaffs

3- Tricks (but please warrant them)

4- Identity Ks, Dense phil

5- Pomo (you have to really explain it well lol)

Theory defaults if no-one specifies:
Competing interps, DTD, No RVIs (def willing to vote on an RVI though, even on T)

Speaker points are so arbitrary. If you want a 30 explain why you should get one during you last rebuttal otherwise, I average around a 28.5-29.

Hey everyone,

I'm an experienced debater with four years on the Varsity PF Circuit.

The way I judge is simple: I vote for whoever gives me the clearest and easiest path to the ballot (make it easy for me to know why you won the round).

Some advice for how to do this:

1. Signpost; tell me where you are on the flow. This means tell me what arguments you are making, what they are responding to, and how many there are (Example: I have two responses to my opponent's impact of their first contention. The first response is...). By signposting you show me that you understand the different arguments in the round and you make it easier for me to keep track of everything.

2. Weigh;give me clear weighing mechanisms (magnitude, timeframe, scope, probability, etc...) as to why your side's impacts significantly outweigh those of your opponents. This makes my life easier as a judge because you compare the two sides and don't have to make me think about which outweighs the other.

3. Weigh again; (be extremely sure to tell me why your side is better/worse/outwieghs your opponents side please!)

4. Offtime roadmaps; before each speech (after the constructive speech so starting with rebuttal) it's helpful as a judge to know the rough outline of the structure that your speech will take, that way I can anticipate what you are going to say and it's easier to keep track of. That said, if you give me an offtime roadmap before your speechplease follow itbecause otherwise there was no point to giving me one in the first place.

Be respectful to each other but you can still be aggressive. There is a difference and as a debater, I can tell between the two.

I'm comfortable with any arguments (tech over truth) and so if you tell me something and it goes uncontested by your opponents I buy it. I'm comfortable with any speed but make sure you are comfortable with that speed.

Most importantly, debate is a fun educational activity so just make sure to enjoy the round!

hey guys, i'm uraan and i'm a current PF debater at Newton South. if you need me to clarify anything in my paradigm or just have general questions, please ask before the round

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

tldr: typical flow judge, tech>truth, do comparative weighing and win your case for my vote, and extend.

general:

• tech>truth, run anything you want
• my decision goes: weighing -> offense(if you won your case) -> default neg(rare)
• most important thing is to weigh - this is the first place i will look to when i make my decision.
• comparative weighing is the key to win the round, it helps me make a clear decision by seeing who's weighing I should prefer
• judge intervention is bad, and i don't like doing it. so make sure to write my ballot for me by doing comparative weighing
• probability is not real weighing. both arguments will be probable, so just saying that one argument is more probable than the other just doesn't make sense.
• weigh all offense(impact turns, warrant turns, etc.)
• collapse in summary, focus on the quality not the quantity
• i dont listen to cross, but if there is a concession then bring it up in the next speech
• warrant everything out - just having baseless claims wont cut it. good analysis>blippy args with blippy cards
• implicate all turns, delinks and nu's
• no new content/responses after 1st summary
• SINGPOST -this is important as it makes my life easier
• TO WIN THE WEIGHING YOU ALSO HAVE TO WIN YOUR CASE - this should be obvious but there are so many people who don't get this

extensions:

im picky on extensions which is why i'm making it it's own category. if you don't extend your case in summary, it means you've dropped all defense and offense. so please, extend.

• extensions have to be proper, dont just say "extend our argument" or "extend jones 16 who says inflation only grows 0.007%".extend the argument
• case extensions dont have to be long, keep them consise.
• frontline everything you want to extend in the back half in 2nd rebuttal

when speaking:

• speak as fast as you want, but if you are gonna talk above 250 wpm just send a speech doc to my email
• however, if you are speaking fast you still need to speak clearly. regardless of speed, if i can't understand you, i can't flow what you're saying down.
• i will time you but you should also time yourself. everyone gets a 10 second grace period after their speech, but i will stop flowing after that period.
• time your prep time

speaks:

• won't be too harsh on speaks, everyone will get high speaks as long as you don't act disrespectful or do anything to danger the round.
• dont call me judge, call me uraan. calling me judge makes me feel old and i dont like that.

prog:

• run at your own risk, i dont rly know too much about it

at the end of the day, just be respectful and try to have a fun and exciting round. and remember, its not that deep, this is just a learning experience for all of us.

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent

4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.

2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)

2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )

2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital

PFD

See above

Hi!

My Name is Leif and I am a sophomore at Bronx Science.

Some things to note:

• Give me a clear place to vote
• Weigh!!
• Clearly respond to your opponents' link chain
• Extend your main points throughout all of your speeches
• Speak clearly and give emphasis
• I will vote off the flow
• Cross won’t factor into my decision, so if you want me to to vote off something from there make sure it’s in your speeches
• Lastly, have fun! At the end of the day debate is just a game :)
• Let me know if you have any questions before the round

make Eminem reference in your speech=+0.5 speaks

general stuff (tl;dr) :

• I'm annie. I do debate. LHS '24//UChicago '28 (btw I know nothing about sports. this doesn't make me more likely to vote one way or another but if you're debating the student athlete topic just know I'm about as well-educated on that as your average hermit)

• My job is to adapt to you! This paradigm gives you a guide to my default style but if you have any preferences feel free to ask me to adapt to them. This is just here so I seem like a serious person :)

• Don’t be a jerk! I understand rounds can be heated, but there’s no need to get mad over the US sending things to alaska. Also, if your actions end in -ist, I’ll be the destructionist of your speaks

• No need to speed! The best rounds are tech rounds that are still at a conversational pace, now I can flow faster rounds but if you choose to go fast make sure you are clear (NOTE: Spread at your own risk. Stay 250 wpm or below, lest you want me to not flow something)

• Tech>truth: This means that I will be okay with voting on any arguments as long as they aren’t problematic or exclusionary, if the argument wins on the flow I will sign my ballot for it

• Ask Questions! There might be a bit of jargon in my paradigm that might not be easy to understand so if you aren’t sure how to do something, need clarification on certain parts of my paradigm, or want feedback after the round I’ll be more than happy to help!

• I like raccoons: and if you make a joke about one that would be nice, but no speaker points boost im afraid :(

Substance round:

• I evaluate rounds level by level: I start with the weighing - whose impacts are more important? Then, I ask who wins the best link into that argument? That’s where I’ll sign my ballot

• Please extend and collapse: Choose your best piece of offense (contention or turn) to go for in the backhalf, and when extending the case (giving a quick narrative summary of your argument) in summary or final, please please please actually extend the argument instead of just reading the card name ie “extend smith ‘22” is not a full extension, explain it from uniqueness to impact

• We could be weighin but you playin (in other words, please weigh!): I know this comes up a lot on paradigms, and it’s because weighing helps judges determine which impacts are more important. If both teams win links into different impacts, it’s up to weighing to determine which impact is to be prioritized

• Evidence Ethics/Calling for Evidence: I generally won’t call for evidence unless I think it’s important or if someone in the debate tells me to. I prefer evidence shared on docs because then teams won’t spend too much time sending evidence over the sub-par wifi, but it won’t affect my decision. Miscut evidence would hurt your speaks and, if miscut enough, might lose you a few arguments

• Defense is NOT sticky: sticky defense means that if a team reads defensive arguments or responses in rebuttal, second rebuttal or first summary doesn’t need to respond to it. This rule was made back when summary was only 2 minutes long but now that it’s been extended to 3 minutes there is no reason for defense to be sticky

• I presume First: If nobody wins any arguments at the end, I will presume (vote automatically) for the first speaking team. would prefer rounds not to end this way

THE REST OF THIS PARADIGM IS FOR PROGRESSIVE DEBATE! IF YOU ARE A NOVICE DON’T SWEAT IT BUT SINCE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PROGRESSIVE DEBATE ARE SEEPING INTO NOVICE ROUNDS THIS WILL STILL BE HERE FOR REFERENCE!

Theory (if you must):

• I have no theory biases except trigger warnings are good and disclosure is good, I won’t hack for either of these but if you run theory otherwise you might want to keep that in mind

• If you make a trigger warning you should use a trigger warning form that is anonymous for respondents, I generally think that war/poverty impacts don't need trigger warnings (but you can argue otherwise and I will consider it like any other argument) but you do need trigger warnings for anything else that could be potentially triggering (feel free to ask me if you want me to clarify) eg trafficking, genocide, mental health issues, etc

• I default to competing interps and no RVIs unless told otherwise but I have no biases on this and which way I end up evaluating the round depends on what yall say

• Extend the full shell through every speech otherwise it’s considered dropped, I have very tiny threshold for “spirit of the shell” especially if it’s frivolous theory

Ks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

• I will treat evidence challenge IVIs as round ending issues, but if I vote on an IVI I need it to be developed and warranted instead of a 3 second blip about why they should be voted down for doing X

• I am alright with prefiat frameworks but it’s better for them to be warranted in addition to the cards so the reasons why your framework means you should be voted up make sense even to debaters who aren’t familiar with prefiat arguments

• I am suspicious of “link ins are not allowed” arguments, not that I automatically vote against them but reading these arguments need a lot of good warranting for me to be open to it

• If Kritiks are read, they need to be slow and warranted, the same applies to T and perm do boths if you choose to read them in response

• If neither side wins or weighs between K and theory, I default to evaluating theory first but that changes depending on how you debate the round

• I’m not entirely comfortable voting on identity Ks against debaters of that identity, I won’t vote you down for this but it could potentially affect speaker points

Speaker Points Guide (I tend to be SUPER lenient about speaker points my coach yelled at me for giving too high speaker points so take that how you will)

29.5-30: debating was excellent, very well articulated, no big flaws in debating or strategy!

29-29.5:I thought your debating was good, maybe a few minor mistakes but nothing particularly bad

28-29: average, good debating overall but some mistakes, but not too bad (this is a pretty big range so the extent of a mistake or speaking style is going to impact where you fall on this scale)

27-28:made some pretty big strategic mistakes in this round

sub 27: There were a lot of large mistakes in this debate, or you were very unclear

I won't go below 26.5 but if you say something problematic. Then, I'm dropping your speaks to the lowest possible in the tournament .... just please don't UwU. We want to keep this a welcome space for everyone! If you feel unsafe please please please let me know ASAP - your safety is more important than a random high school debate round!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!!!!!

This is my second year doing Public Forum debate at Lexington High School. I will be new to some Policy or LD arguments as I have only debated PF. You may feel free to run them, though, as I do find them interesting, but overall substance may be the best way to go. Framework is completely fine though.

As for judging, I definitely flow and follow the flow so by the end I truly vote on who I thought the better debaters were. Debate what is most important for you to debate, unless it is offensive of course, whether that is something you need practice with or arguments you just have fun with.

Keep your speeches clear with signposting and any debate jargon you wish. Speaking is only really too fast if I have to rely fully on a speech doc to understand the argument. Weighing is quite important too but most of all make sure to keep everything on the flow and be careful to not drop any arguments.

Anyway, come with positivity and be ready to do your best. I'm looking forward to judging your round!

Hi! I'm Dayus, and I have experience in PF Debate, Mock Trial, and MUN. I am looking for everyone to be very clear with their speeches and provide proper evidence. Weighing is extremely important in my decisions, and please make sure you stay organized. I'm overall pretty chill, and let me know if you have any questions!

Millard North '25

Email: sanvigudarus@gmail.com

For middle school debate - Please extend your arguments and do comparative weighing in the last speech. Otherwise, I have to do the work for you or default to your opponent's argument.

Top line I'll vote on any argument that isn't offensive. Read what you're comfortable with not what you think I'll like.

Good with speed but slow down on analytics off-doc. If you go full speed on off-doc analytics, you risk me not catching all of them.

Give good judge instruction. Your last speech should write my RFD: "you vote aff/neg because..."

Prefs based on how comfortable I feel evaluating the debate (don't let this prevent you from reading but just know I might not know your literature; explain it like I'm 5)

1 - Policy

2 - K, t/theory

3 - Tricks (please warrant them), phil (kant, hobbes, rawls)

4 - Phil (anything else)

Frivolous theory and tricks are fine but I'll probably have a lower threshold for responses.

I don't care how you dress or if you sit or stand; do whatever makes you comfortable.

SHS ‘26 congress kid with some experience in PF/Extemp. Speechies and debate novices, go to the bottom of the paradigm!

VPF:

tldr; a pretty normal flow judge

I’m a flow judge because of the countless lost rounds due to a parent judge not going off the flow and I firmly believe that tech > truth but if you want me to switch to flay/lay i def dont mind.

if you don't weigh, you lose the round. pls weigh! (and don't j say you outweigh on xyz, tell me why!) (metaweigh too, pretty pls)

second rebuttal must frontline first rebuttal

i presume neg

anything not extended in summary AND ff is dropped.

tell me voters in ff

im not good at remembering taglines nor do i really care about them. Tell me what you’re extending instead of just saying “extending somenamehere ‘XY…”

I’d prefer more analysis on constructive/rebuttal. This doesn’t mean that your warrants can be bad, but analysis def matters more than warrants. I’d rather have you explain a really short warrant than a really long warrant explaining it for you

speed is ok as long as you are clear. I type slow and hand-write even slower so it will be really hard to flow your arguments if you’re yapping

PF Prog: tldr don’t run it unless theory

• I kinda sorta hate tricks, run it and get a 26
• i’m kinda eh about theory. i don’t like it when it is run like a free win pass, but if there is a genuine violation (or tricks. Can’t express how much i don’t like tricks…..) go for it.
• I actually like Ks as long as they make sense, but i don’t like them in pf. Run a good K for an automatic 30, run a dumb K and get a 26. If it’s like the last round and y’all just want to have fun, this doesn’t apply
• disclo is stupid imo and i won’t evaluate it

VLD:

I’ve never done LD, but if, for any reason, im judging LD, just don’t spread like crazy. I understand the event enough to not really care about any crazy progressive arguments being presented (minus tricks. Don’t do tricks) but i will remind you that my main event is congress (where everyone speaks at snail speed, no offense) so if you talk at 250+ WPM i will not understand you.

Policy:

Why is there policy on the local circuit? Why would I be judging policy on natcirc? Anyways i have no idea how policy works so treat me like a lay judge who happens to be flowing :) and don't spread-spread.

BQ

See policy. Why am I judging BQ? But since imo BQ is a lot easier to understand than CX, i may be able to judge a lot better. See VPF/VLD paradigm for more specifics

Congress:

Congress is a speech and debate event imo. Both your presentation and interaction with the round matter.

I personally rank 60% based on speeches and 40% based on questioning. Giving amazing speeches but asking no questions is kinda sucky in my book but it’s still possible to rank high. Giving great questions but no speeches, I think it’s possible to rank in the higher but you have to be like reaallly good at questions so I dont suggest it.

if you say “contention”unironically that’s an automatic 11 from me (I’m joking but like I will get really annoyed)

Personally? I don’t really care about some rehash. It’s difficult to have a completely unique speech. As long as you can add something to the debate (like a new impact, source, study, etc), it’s not gonna tank your speech scores. I’m not gonna like it very much if your whole speech is just rehash, but a bit isn’t going to hurt you.

Cool intros = cool speech scores probably

flip sides and get a 5/6 or 7/8 (depends on the scale). I really like it if you flip to the unconventional side. It’s difficult but lets be honest, you look wayyyyy better to the judge than if you were to give the 4th aff in a row

I expect almost every speech after 1A to respond to or at least mention at least 1 person, and everyone after 3A to respond to at least 2. Respond to someone as 1N or 2A and you may get bumped a rank (bc it’s annoying to change prewrittens)

po-ing is hard. do an ok job as a PO and you can expect at least a 6 or top half of chamber rank as long as you speak and ask questions to some extent. personally, i don't see po as an easy break but go for it if you really want to try!! Novices, if it’s ur first tournament like ever, I’d suggest to wait for a dif tournament for POing

Extemp

Literally y’all extempers are so talented I can’t

some ways to rank higher with me:

• choose the unconventional answer!
• Good and properly cited sources; i don’t care about fluency breaks but if you’re the best speaker in the world citing Wikipedia or something, I’m not ranking you high.
• this section is a work in progress because I havent done extemp in a hot minute. Ask me any questions in round though

ALL Speech minus extemp (even though speechies dont have paradigms):

im being honest, just do your best. y'all do great and it's so fun to watch speech final rounds or natcirc speeches. My sister also does speech (I know you read my paradigm, Alice) so i can’t really be mean and say that debate > speech nd whatnot

PF/LD/CX/BQ NOVICES:

y'all are great for giving this activity a shot. just have fun with it and don't be afraid to ask questions!! generally, i try to judge novices more flay than flow. i understand that it's super hard to try to respond to everything, but if you want me to judge full lay or just be a flow judge, that's alright as long as your opps are ok with it.

other notes:

• speak clearly! i spoke wicked fast as a novice, and that was probably a mistake bc it was hard to understand to most judges
• I tend to like more traditional debates for novices (ie. no prog). it's important to make sure you know what you're doing and get a feel for the event before jumping into Ks, theory, etc
• cross should remain civil!! this is a kinda big issue for novices but you shouldn't try to intimidate or make fun of your opponent!! poking holes in a case makes you look smart, acting like a jerk makes you look like you're full of yourself and your speaks WILL get tanked.
• don't steal prep time!! even if you have virtually nothing down, just extemp it! no harm on your speaking scores, the only way to get a 27.0- from me is if you're rude or offensive (or if you run abusive/bad prog. Dw about that yet)
• have any questions about the definitions of stuff on the rest of my paradigm? Feel free to ask me about it. It’s good to know!

email me if you have questions before or after round! (i suggest you cc both emails)

School: awhe26@students.shrewsbury.k12.ma.us

Personal: amy.he215@gmail.com

hey! im a junior and ive debated for three years @ newton south

add me to the email chain: chloehu1919@gmail.com

For novices:

don't worry, you guys are doing great! ik that debate can be very daunting, but if you have any questions, email me or add me on facebook

extend, collapse, weigh (weighing is the most important to me)-- don't worry too much about it tho, but reach out if you have questions! im here to make your experience as fun as possible

For everyone else

have fun, debate is a game tech>truth

if both teams agree w it, I can evaluate the round as a lay

collapsing will make the round clearer, but i won't drop u if u don't (i will take off speaks if ur in varsity and ur not extending your case bc it's offense)

weighing is one of the first things I look at when evaluating a round -- make it interactive and comparative pls for the love of god + link-ins, short circuits, prereqs are all v v nice

spreading is fine but nothing >1000 words and send speech docs

be nice during a cross, nothing offensive + no mansplaining or i will dock speaks (ty!)

terminalize + contextualize your impacts

my knowledge of prog is pretty limited (I've hit it a few times), run if u want, but no guarantee that I will evaluate it properly.

if you misconstrue your cards on purpose and multiple times, I will drop you

defense is not sticky

turns/das/any offense needs to be implicated, weighed, and have an impact for it to count as a unique piece of offense

if you bring me any good candy i will boost speaks by +1

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

hey guys!

i'm Nain, a current debater at Newton South High School.

tech>truth!

i do flow all arguments, but I will stop flowing after a 10 second grace period. I don't flow cross :)

please don't bring in new arguments after the second summary

remember, confidence is key and take a deep breath!

(be respectful during the round and if anyone is racist/homophobic/etc, i will stop the round.)

Hi! My name is Anya, and I am a Newton South High School PF debater! My email is anyak726@gmail.com.

For Middle School Debate:

When speaking:

• Speak clearly! I can flow fast, but make sure you are being clear.
• Be respectful to your opponents! Being rude during cross or any speeches is not ok and will result in low speaks.
• Use all of your time! I cannot stress this enough, I want to hear what you have to say! Even if you think you don't have anything more to say, just dive deeper as I promise you there is always something to say!
• I will time you, but also please time yourself. At the end of your time, I will hold up my fist. I will allow a 10-second grace period, but afterward will stop flowing.

Content:

• If it's not in summary, it's not in final focus.
• Don't misconstrue evidence (should go without saying...)
• Extend your arguments during each speech, and remind me again the basics of your argument.
• Collapse during summary! Choose an argument to focus on, and tell me why I need to prioritize it over your opponents.
• Final focus should write my ballot for me. Tell me why I am voting for you versus your opponents.

Progressive arguments:

• Run at your own risk. Not the biggest fan of it in general, I don't really think it belongs in PF.

You are going to do great :)

If in the last speech of a any debate round, final focus, rationale etc., you do it in a british accent i’ll boost your speaks

Or if you use your prep time to play a game of clash royale i’ll boost your speaks - if you win that game, 30 speaking points.

hi!! i'm mckenna, i do pf debate at newton south, im a typical flow judge (tech > truth)

my email is mckennalevy16@gmail.com (pls add me if you make a chain)

middle school:

- i'll time you, time yourself too though, i'm good w a 10 sec grace period (if everyone in round agrees), i'll stop flowing after that

- compare arguments/impacts as much as possible!! it can be the deciding factor, tell me why i should vote for you

- dont sacrifice clarity for speed (if i dont know what your saying i can't evaluate it)

- extend extend extend, i want to know what i'm voting for and why (tell me in every speech i wanna be sick of it by the end of round)

- have fun!!! be confident, do your best dont worry too much, your gonna do amazing i can't wait to hear it!

lmk if you have any questions about my paradigm or the round in general!

my name is olivia, i coach debate and do mock trial and love public speaking. i am a chill judge, and am very experienced, i’m fine with speed, i like when you outline your arguments specifically as you move throughout your speeches, and when you spend time weighing and outlining which arguments were left unresponded to or dropped. don’t be mean to each other during cross :)

email bryanrpeng@gmail.com if you need anything

stolen from (SEBASTIAN CARDENA)

From Cardena

K's, theory, etc. ought not belong in Public Forum debate and should only be used as a last resort. If you poorly present a K or theory case, I will do two things. First, I will drop you, giving your opponents a win. Second, I will moderate a civil conversation about your K or theory so that we can set ourselves on the path toward changing norms or demonstrating how problematic your argumentation was. (from me just dont run one)

Case — Don't stick six contentions in case. Good argumentation trumps a pure deluge of information.

Rebuttal — Signpost. Make it clear what evidence you are responding to and number your responses. Quality over quantity on responses. Signpost as much as possible.The second rebuttal must frontline. The second rebuttal also cannot introduce new arguments as the team speaking first is, therefore, unable to respond.

Summary/FF — Collapse, provide defense, and start weighing. This should not be another rebuttal nor another chance to read case. Make sure to signpost here, too. This speech is make-or-break. Make sure that arguments are extended, are clear, and have been expanded upon. You start weighing here — and that is a must. Also, please collapse. All three contentions will rarely continue standing at the end of the round, and you don't have time for them either.

Cross — I do not flow cross. It's too much fun.

Prep time — Time yourselves, please. I don't want to call you out constantly.

Calling for evidence — Please, please, please do not spam calls for cards. Generally, it ends up being abusive. Evidence ethics for me are this: do not lie or blatantly misconstrue. I may excuse paraphrasing depending on the importance of the evidence, particularly in PF.

FROM ME

The biggest thing: weighing is, in some regards, necessary, but don't spam me with every weighing mechanism known to man. 'Weighing is overrated' - 2019 national champ sandeep shankar. I don't care if your impact kills more people more quickly; if you lose the link to it, you shouldn't have any impact. Winning the argument is better than winning weighing, e.g., having your okay impact at the end of the round wins over not having any impact standing.

dont be rude racist sexist anything like that you will get dropped

sing any song I know bar for bar no looking at lyrics or get me food = instant 30 speaks

I’m a high schooler at L-S; I’ve debated for the past 4 years but this year is my first year in varsity.

Please speak at a conversational speed; I can understand a fast pace but prefer debaters who have a normal pace.

Make sure to extend in the back half

Respond to all substance or I’ll see it as conceded

WEIGH; meta weigh as well so you basically write the ballot for me

Have fun!

Hello Debaters. The only paradigm I can have is just remember to quantify your impacts, this means provide numbers to impacts also remember to signpost so I know where in the flow you are. Its okay to speak fast, critical thinking is appreciated. Remember to weigh impacts.

Thank you

Hi!

My name is Lillian Yang (She/Her) you can call me "Lillian" or "Judge"

I am a sophomore at Lexington High School and have debated LD since freshman year

Please add me to the email chain: lillianyang2017@gmail.com

For Novices/Local Tournaments

SPEAK CLEARLY and signpost (give a roadmap before speeches). I'm cool with any speed as long as you are clear and your opponent is comfortable with it.

Value Criterion/Framework holds the highest layer.

Arguments should be extended through the flow. I will not evaluate new responses in the 2NR/2AR.

Use evidence to back up your claim.

Do not use CX to prep- asking good questions will increase your speaks.

Make sure to do WEIGHING in your later speeches and COLLAPSE to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well. I tend to vote for well-warranted/impacted arguments.

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc.

Feel free to ask me anything before and after the round.

Good luck and have fun!!!