Do whatever you want, i don't really care. Chances are I'll get distracted by interesting objects in the room we're in, it's happened before.

Extra speaker points for people who incorporate some aspect of the "chicken" and make me laugh.

I will end the debate after the 1NC and give you the ballot if you read an Earthworm DA or T-too topical.

harker 23 - 23mirb@students.harker.org

@muzzi khan's paradigm

Hi there! I debated PF for Harker for 4 years and currently am a junior at Columbia.

1) I'd prefer if you speak slowly, but I'm ok with some speed if you enunciate well. That said, spreading in PF decreases the format's accessibility to lay judges and novice debaters in my opinion.

2) Please understand (or at least make me think you understand) your warrants. I will almost never call for evidence unless there's blatant abuse/misuse of it; it's your responsibility to effectively weigh your warrants.

3) I don't flow cross-x, but I'll listen to it (and hopefully be entertained).

4) Signpost! Tell me where you are going down the flow.

5) I have a very rudimentary understanding of theory, but if you run it you must be explicit in how I should evaluate it.

6) Weigh your arguments in summary/FF (heck, you can even start in rebuttal sometimes). Don't just repeat the warrants of offensive arguments; tell me why your arguments (or their warrants/link-chains) outweigh the opponents' on timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc. In final focus, extend necessary defense and give me your offensive voters/weigh them.

Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round!

update for toc: i haven't done much research on the topic, so please don't use assume I know anything.

harker 20 ->wellesley 24 and did pf in hs

set up an email chain before round and add me: amandakcheung@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

Voting:

- everything extended in final focus must be in summary

- weigh impacts: i don't want to do the work for you cuz it probably won't work out in your favor

- tech > truth

- COLLAPSE!!! (if u don't collapse starting in second summary (though preferably you start first summary), i give you a max of 28 speaks)

- implicate turns

- if you read something progressive, tell me the role it should play in my ballot (if its like Theory or a K explain it really clearly and expect me to evaluate it as a parent judge would)

- if its like disclosure theory and your opponents seem confused/ don't know how to debate it, i think its extremely uneducational for the round and will not vote for it/ drop u

General Preferences:

- i will give u < 25 if you are condescending, rude, or making the round unsafe (misgendering anyone's pronouns, being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist etc)

- speak as fast as you want as long as you're clear (i will stop flowing if you are too unclear). if you think you might be too fast or unclear (zoom quality etc) send a speech doc before your speech or ill just go off of whatever i could understand which will probably hurt you

- second rebuttal should frontline defense from the argument(s) that you are collapsing on and all offense

- second flight should preflow before the round

- ill give u up to a minute to look for evidence (more flexible if there's a lot called) and after that, it comes out of ur prep. also please send CUT CARDS not paraphrases or links to articles

- if you read a TW, please provide an anonymous out (google form etc) for your opponents and anyone in the room. if you don't do this, i will say that i feel uncomfortable regardless of the argument and make you read something else.

most importantly, debate's a safe space; if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, pls lmk!!

feel free to pm me with any questions u have on fb or amandakcheung@gmail.com

I am a parent judge and I have judged few tournaments.

I will be judging on the framework and team spirit.

Have fun debating!

I know a lot about the topic and since I have been judging for the past almost two years, I do flow properly. Also, I believe that during cross-ex is when each side reveals their weaknesses and how well they have an understanding of the topic. So, I do closely look at cross fire.

Also, be nice and respectful to your opponents if you want high speaks from me.

In your summary, there can be new evidence but not any new arguments. In your final focus, there should not be any new arguments nor any new evidence.

Lastly, have fun!!

About me:

• I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect. 

UC Berkeley Haas School of Business 02'

USC Law 07'

LARP/Policy - 1

K's/Phil/Tricks - Strike

Debate is first and foremost a game. This means that the affirmative must defend a topical plan and the neg has to prove the plan is a bad idea. I don't think people believe it when I say that I am not voting for a k or a non-topical affirmative - please don't test this. I default to util, it will be hard to win any other frameworks in front of me. Tricks are not real arguments and will not be evaluated - the reading of these will result in very low speaker points.

Quick Thoughts:

One conditional advocacy is not bad - anything else is up for debate

I will not vote off an RVI

Death is always bad

If you split the 2nr you will not get above a 28.5

Speed is not a problem - that being said please be clear and understandable (distinguish between tags and the card, go slower on analytics etc.) - I will not be able to understand 500 wpm of gibberish and your speaks will suffer greatly

The role of the ballot/judge is to vote for the better debater - this is non-negotiable

Disclosure is good - show me your wiki after the round and if it is nice I will boost your speaks

Flow please - show me your flows after the round for a speaks boost

Theory:

I default to using competing interpretations - reasonability will be hard to win in front of me. Please do comparative weighing and contextualize the abuse to this specific round rather than reading generic abuse stories.

Speaker Points:

30 - you are the best debater I have ever seen

29 - you will likely make late elimination rounds

28 - average - may clear

27 - below average

26 - you have a lot of work to do

• all offense in final focus must be in summary
• with the 3 minute summaries, both summaries have to collapse on and extend defense
• 2nd rebuttal should split
• Weigh - try to establish weighing early in the round, no new weighing in 2nd FF unless there was no weighing at all in the round; if both teams weigh, weigh weighing mechanisms
• speed - don’t go too fast, be understandable, but i’m generally ok with speed
• please signpost in the 2nd half of the round
• anything from crossfire has to be in speech for me to evaluate it
• be nice in cross
• i’ll probably evaluate any argument in the round unless it’s racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.
• i’ll call for evidence usually only if someone tells me to call for it
• don’t run theory