I did PF for Walt Whitman and graduated in 2013. I coached at Whitman for threee years, and Riverdale Country School for one year

Speed and technical debate are both fine with me, but you need to be clear. This means signposting, warranting your arguments, and weighing explicitly. I am not going to do work for you, so if you don’t literally tell me why I should vote on something I will not vote on it. I am not going to do any analysis that you do not do for me in your speeches.

I am open to any type of argument. That being said, I can be easily persuaded by opponents’ claims that particular interpretations are unfair ways to view resolutions. If you do anything risky, you need to be able to A) defend why what you’re doing is fair and B) obviously win it if you want me to vote on it. The one caveat to this is if you run anything that is discriminatory in any way (racist, sexist, classist, etc.) I will get really, really angry. Please do not do this, I don’t want to hear your genocide is good contention even if you are down four and not breaking.

Summaries:

If you are first summary, I do not need you to extend defense on arguments that your opponents’ have not gotten to go back to in their rebuttal. If your opponents do not answer that defense in their summary, I am fine as having that as a reason not to vote for them on that argument as long as you extend/explain that they didn’t answer that response in your ff. Any offense you want to go for in final focus need to be in first summary though, including turns on their case (if you don’t extend the turn in your first summary, but extend it in final focus I can evaluate it as defense on their argument but I won’t vote on it).

If you are second summary, you know what your opponents are going for so my standard is a little higher. Any defense you want to extend in final focus need to be in your summary. Only exception to this is if your opponents switch what they are going for in their first final focus (don’t do this please), and you need to remind me that they never answered the defense you had put on that argument.

Weighing:

Weighing needs to be comparative or superlative in some way. The structure should generally be phrased as x is more important than y because or x is the mot important issue in the round because not just x is important because.

did pf, will flow, make a joke pls <3

pls extend defense in first summary, frontline in second rebuttal so first summ isnt useless

no theory but progressive weighing is cool (also quite strategic tbh)

i really think all impacts are exaggerated in PF so please engage more with qualitative weighing rather than "my number is bigger" -- I am more compelled by why i should care about domestic lives than international, for example, than how many lives are saved by either team

don't believe in low speak wins-- they are lowkey problematic

ask me about bp debate and ill bump ur speaks hehe

*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*

Email: achoi07650@gmail.com

1. Tech v. Truth

- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech

- always assume I don't know anything

- generally not an interventionist judge

2. Positions

Disads - cool

Counterplans - cool except in PF

Kritiks - cool

Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)

Topicality - will rarely vote on it

3. Speed + Evidence

- any speeds fine but plz it's public forum shouldn't be spreading

- I probably won't call cards but you never know

- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence

4. Speaks

- will give high speaks for nice round :)

- if y'all chill expect 28+

- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25

5. Basic stuff

- please weigh

- I ain't tolerating problematic behavior in my rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, this event ain't life or death depending on a win.

- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.

6. Digital stuff

- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.

- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be flustered if I ask you to repeat something it is important for me to hear it :).

- Say if you need me to accommodate something. I'm fairly flexible as long as it is agreeable with everyone and the tournament staff/guidelines.

Debated PF for four years for Dalton. A few things I would like to see in round:

1. Weigh. Almost every judge puts this on their paradigm for a reason. If you don't tell me how to evaluate the round I'll have to evaluate the round using my own mechanism and you may not like it. Also, if the other team also does weighing, don't just bring up your weighing - explain why I should prefer your weighing mechanism over theirs.

2. Signpost well. It'll make it easier for me to follow your arguments.

3. Create a narrative. Don't just give me 5 different cards and say that's why we win the round. Work the cards into a cohesive narrative or argument that will persuade me.

4. Logical responses. Not every response needs to be a card dump. Those who can give me well warranted responses with evidence to go along with it that make sense to me will fare well.

5. Be careful of running theories or k's on me. My understanding of them is limited.

6. I DO NOT believe tech > truth. What this means is don't run any arguments that you know make absolutely zero sense in reality in front of me, even if you have some obscure source claiming it so. I like creative link chains but there is a limit. ***TO CLARIFY*** I've seen some concern that by this I mean I want arguments to be 100% true - this is not the case at all. I just want don't want arguments to be 100% not true - I can accept arguments that I know won't happen but sound plausible or even sort of possible. Basically just be wary about running nuke war -> extinction in front of me.

Debate was by far my favorite activity in high school, and sometimes a bad or good judge could really define the round experience for me. If there's any questions you have or anything you would like me to know to help me be the best judge for you just let me know before the round. Please also be respectful to your opponents both in and out of round. Above all, have fun!!!! This is a high school activity; sometimes we forget that(I know I did).

Just as it has always been, when our memories of the ancient world fade into twilight a new era dawns to fill the void, an unfamiliar path with a pulse of its own, a tempo not dictated by the labor of men but accelerated by the rhythm of machines, launching the world into an age of bold innovation. From this cauldron of steel and sweat a vision of prosperity emerged. Harnessing the untold power of the elements, turning night into day. creating new designs that brought the world stage into to masses, and providing an experience that many could never imagine. The advent of mechanized warfare brought devastation like none the world had ever seen providing a window of opportunity for some to dictate conformity as regimes spread their ideologies with a heavy hand, inciting the world to the brink of war. and yet some chose a different path and through their vision brought unique perspective to the world. as singular proponents of free thinking remained striving for peace in their endeavors to unlock secrets of the universe, some of which would fill our hearts with fear and regret. but as this progress unfolds the finite nature of our world becomes clear, our survival, the survival of all the worlds peoples depends on our ability to coexist in peace, but this peace is tenuous. Although mankind will always look onward, yearning for more, searching for new boundaries only to break through them, with the understanding that this world is one in which we all share, comes the responsibility of knowing the decisions you make today will have a lasting impact on the generations of tomorrow.

I did public forum for Dalton

Please let me know if I can do anything to make you feel more comfortable or safe in round. Feel free to email me at ilanadebateacct@gmail.com if you have things that you'd rather not say publicly. Please add me to the email chain here as well.

1. I am good with PF speed (<300 wpm), as long as your opponents are. Debate the way that makes you feel most confident in your analytical skills

2. I am open to voting off of any arguments as long as they are fully warranted, fully extended, and non-discriminatory

3. Please do actually comparative weighing

4. First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it's frontlined in second rebuttal. My personal preference is that second speaking teams frontline offense at the very least, but you do you
5. If you extend an indict or think that they're misrepresenting evidence and you extend this through FF I'll call for it, but otherwise I will not intervene about evidence
6. I am open to evaluating Ks, and will do so to the best of my ability. I prefer that you use theory to check back for in round abuse, and am very fine with paragraph theory
7. I presume first speaking team unless given warranted reasons otherwise

Let me know if you have any questions

Debated pf in high school, haven't judged in a few years. will flow, don't know anything about the topic. Will give RFD. 

In sum, first-year out who will vote off the flow. Please weigh.

I debated for four years for Horace Mann (class of 2019) and attended TOC in my upperclassman years.

While I will act as a tech judge, I also value some truth in arguments—the more far-fetched your argument seems, the more likely I am to buy simple, logical responses. However, I do vote off the flow as much as possible, so in the second half of the round, please fully extend all arguments you expect me to include when deciding.

Please weigh—otherwise, you'll be unhappy with my decision. Please also interact with your opponents' weighing if they provide any.

Technical things: I discourage but can handle speed, prefer fleshed out logic over blippy card dumps, don't require defense in first summary unless second rebuttal has frontlined (which is also optional), and have minimal to nonexistent experience with all types of progressive arguments (but am open to voting off substantive theory shells for actual in-round abuse).

I have no knowledge about the current topics as I do not coach; please do not assume I know anything about stock arguments or topic-related acronyms.

Small things: Set up before me and do the flip if you are able; no need for handshakes; I think speaker points are very arbitrary and try to inflate them a little (shh).

Last of all, please let me do if there is anything I can do to make your life easier—debate is about learning and having fun fun at the same time, and I believe everyone in the round should work towards making that happen.

For further reference, please check out this paradigm written by my teammates Sajan Mehrotra and Ethan Kim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fw2VpOyJbxFPYGz2jseTGfbbZiUgIRQJqh5LvCgbahw/edit?usp=sharing

Debate coach at Bergen Debate Club for almost 10 years. Feel free to ask me debate-related questions at the end of the round--I always enjoy chatting about the topic, arguments, theory, and philosophy before moving on to the next round.

For new debaters: Have fun and try your best! I have an endless amount of patience for new debaters. Welcome to the world of debate!

PF Paradigm

Everything will be based on flow, so everything that is said is binding--you are responsible for all extensions including cross comments.

The following are not listed in order of importance, so please consider each element with equal merit.

Evidence:

- Add me to email chains: wkang.1221@gmail.com

- I will follow NSDA rules and time you for 1 minute for each card you need to find and then use your prep time for the remainder of time it takes you to send the card. The round is easier when you start the round with a shared Google Doc or email chain to streamline the card-sharing process.

Speech Components:

- Signposting: Non-optional! This always adds to the clarity of any debate. Please don't just say "On my first contention"... full signposting includes what that first contention is. (I mention this because debaters usually begin signposting effectively and either forget/forgo/become lazier as the round moves forward and stop signposting clearly).

- Turns: Please extend your warrants (this does not mean to just re-read your cards)--contextualize your response. Additional reasoning/warranting never hurt anyone.

- Frontlines: Essential starting from 2nd rebuttal! Remember that everything holds in the flow. If you don't frontline, their response(s) against your speech holds until the end of the round.

- Defense: Likewise with weighing, please implicate your defense.

Weighing:

- Weigh as early as possible in the 2nd rebuttal/summary after any necessary frontlines and be explicit in voters during FF. Weigh as effectively as possible (in a clear manner) within the allotted time.

- Comparative weighing is essential. If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please comparatively weigh AND implicate your arguments so that I don't have to do it in my head for you.

- Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

- Please metaweigh!

- Merely because you've won a framework, does not mean that you've won the round--ensure that you outline/complete weighing during the Sum & FF.

Presentation:

- *Well-warranted argumentation is good, but analytical and nuanced argumentation of well-warranted arguments is even better.

- (Un)fortunately, as a long-time debate coach, I am a tech over truth judge (even if I know the topic/argument/evidence)--meaning that how well something is debated determines how much truth value I place upon it.

- If there is a loss of professionalism from either side, I will ensure to give 25s & a loss to the individual(s).

- Turning on questions is expected, but if any individual during any CF refuses to answer a single question (in a clear manner), I will consider it to be poor handling of the CF. Depending on the severity/consistency, this may result in lower speaks.

Two asides:

1) I will always disclose (unless the tournament rules prevent me from doing so). My RFDs tend to go through everything on the flow, but due to time constraints of presenting RFDs, I will go through them relatively quickly so that we can all move on to the next round--so, I tend to speak somewhat quickly. If at any point you are unclear about something I've said, please ask before I let you go. I try my best to be constructive, so I hope that you listen to the feedback rather than waiting for a win/loss (If you just want to hear win/loss then lmk and I can do that to save everyone time!) If we have time and it's not too late in the day, feel free to post-round me by asking questions.

2) Theories/Progressive arguments are fun but do not make them your end-all-be-all. You still have to be clearly topical, btw. If the opposition responds with reasonability args/inability to engage statements--I respect it and understand it as a once novice debater.

LD Paradigm

Everything will be based on the flow. (Would be much appreciated if you add me to the email chain at the start to supplement this element). Additionally, a clear analysis of your arguments will be pivotal to winning.

I've studied philosophy so feel free to present the technical stuff, theories, and Ks, but if you do so, it would be helpful if you took a brief moment to review the parts of the arguments that you wish to ensure I focus on in my flow. Theories of justice, moral philosophy (mainly regarding forgiveness), and contractualism are what I'm primarily comfortable with, in the absence of additional analysis. Regardless, feel free to run what you desire, so long as you adhere to the reviewing element mentioned prior.

Keep the following in mind:

- Critical Theory arguments need to genuinely add something to the round, not be an excuse to avoid topicality. I focus on topicality when discussing theory. I will most likely skew the debate in favor of whoever presents a case to which more components can prove to be topical. This is especially true for link chains — I need to see a link from the case and Ks to the topic.

- K debate is great when it serves to challenge existing power structures and/or address the marginalization of groups. Remember: if you are going to run theory, don't just read theory cards to confuse your opponent.

- Please don't make your whole case just by reading cards. Rereading your cards does not equate to analysis when asked to elaborate on a piece of evidence during a cross.

- If you are going to abbreviate anything, please state what you are abbreviating initially before just using the abbreviation to avoid unnecessary remarks between debaters.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

Weigh!

Speaks are generally 28 & above because I'm a mensch.

Reading theory -> 30 speaks (unless it's disclosure, thats a 26 [though if you read disclosure and don't disclose that's still a 30])

meow

I'm a varsity public forum debater at Bronx Science. I'll flow everything and vote off my flow. Logic is more important to me than cards but don't make ~outlandish~ claims that can't be warranted

also weigh and signpost and extend what you care about and you should be good

warrant

weigh

XD

I agree with everything here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=61812

For Blake 2020: Absolutely zero prior knowledge. Please explain everything to me.

If you say this round boils down to two main points you get better speaking points

I am a lay judge and I am a teacher. I understand the flow to some extent. Please make sure you present well constructed arguments and explain your evidence and refutations clearly. If you use data, explain its significance. Thank you.

4 years of PF , doing BP now

Don't require front-lining in second rebuttal but I recommend it

Summaries and FF should be consistent. Flow key points through all speeches.

Weighing is the most important

No theory

Hi

Don't spread. 

Please do not use progressive arguments in PF rounds; speak at an average rate and be nice to each other.

In general, I’m open to debaters making whatever arguments they like as long as it is a coherent argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will default to evaluating the debate by what was said in the debates and not my personal dispositions.

I think that it is important for teams to engage with the others arguments – I like to see a lot of clash and rationale for why your arguments are better. I want to see a good flow. Speak slowly and clearly when you are starting a new argument or reading a tag. If I can’t hear it, it won’t get on the flow. Ideally, I want to be able to evaluate the arguments line-by-line across the flow.

I'll vote how you tell me to, provided you tell me how & why. Ideally, that means I'm given a weighing mechanism(s) for the round, told how to compare them in case of more than one such mechanism, and told how each major argument should be weighed with regards to these mechanisms. If neither debater tells me how arguments should interact with each other and the standard(s) to decide the round, then I have to decide (which isn’t the outcome you generally want!)

If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me before the debate.

Ask before round :)

first year out

dont:

- spread

- scream

- be offensive

please weigh!

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

Debated PF at Edgemont HS in NY for 4 years, currently a first year out.

Basics:

As long as you are willing to risk me missing a response/argument, go at any speed you’d like as long as you are clear, but don’t spread. Tech > truth. If an argument is dropped, the link is true for the purposes of the round. Walk me throughout the entire link story to win the argument. COLLAPSE and WEIGH. I may actively call for evidence at the end of the round to discourage any misconstruing of evidence. If it's not in the final focus, it won't be in my ballot either. I look for the easiest path - the cleanest link with the most important impact. The cleaner the link, the more of the impact/weighing that I grant you. This means that winning the link debate should be your highest priority with me (ofc don't forget to do comparative weighing if both sides end up with offense).

Specifics:

- I’ll say "clear" if you are going too quickly/I can’t understand you. If you can't understand your opponents, you should also shout "clear." I will expect both teams to accommodate the speed/comfort level of both me and the other team.

- I've never had any experience with theory or Ks. Don’t run any progressive arguments in front of me.

- Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy just about anything. It is YOUR responsibility to call the other team out on BS arguments. That being said, the crazier the argument, the more my threshold for responses will decrease. Debate is educational, and I should be hearing arguments that are primarily realistic. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible - even if someone is reading an abusive argument you have to call them out on it.

- Signposting is important to help me keep my place on the flow. I like numbered responses.

- Extensions: I don't evaluate things that aren’t extended in both summary and FF. People are super lazy with their internal warrant extensions. Every single link in the argument must be extended. If both teams don't have a completely extended argument after FF - I will default which argument has a more "complete story"

- Terminal defense is sticky if not frontlined in summary for both sides. Turns that aren't extended in summary but in FF act as terminal defense

- 2nd rebuttal needs to be at the very least a 1-3 split. There needs to be time spent frontlining. 2nd speaking advantage is so large that I prefer a 2-2 split. Turns must be responded to in 2nd rebuttal or they’ll be conceded.

- If something is conceded or you want to bring up an important point from cross, blow it up in a speech.

- if both teams want to skip grand cross that's good with me

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

- I HATE misconstrued evidence. I will tank your speaks if you read intentionally misconstrued evidence (e.g. One team I judged literally added in a word to change the meaning of the evidence). This may also result in an entire argument being dropped – meaning it could cost you the round.

- While I am noninterventionist in big picture argumentation, I may call for multiple pieces of evidence. This is to encourage educational debate that is built on actual research and discourage mishandling of what qualified authors say. This is not to say that evidence is more important than warrants, but evidence is used to magnify the claims you make and make the argument much more convincing. Misconstruing evidence attempts to circumvent actual argumentation. No, this doesn't mean throw cards at me in rebuttal - I still value responses that are logical.

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

- I’ll boost your speaks by 0.5 points if you read non-paraphrased cases. Just show me beforehand.

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

o There is substantial time spent in the round over what it says

o Something sounds super fishy

o The way you portray the evidence seems to shift as the round progresses

- You have one minute to pull up evidence your opponent calls for

Lastly, remember to have fun and don't stress! I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. Let me know if you have questions after round and you can shoot me an email at syangedgemont@gmail.com or message me on FB.