Classes I would not take: AP Chem, Chem H, AP Calc BC, Trig H

Hi! I'm in my sixth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team.

I'd consider myself mostly flow/flay and generally tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments). This means I will flow the round (sans cross) and will evaluate any argument that has a clear (and carded) link chain and impact. All your evidence should be carded, but I will evaluate good analytics above bad cards.

Please time yourself and I will keep time as well. Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world and no one wants that.

Any discrimination (racism/sexism etc.) or abusive language (ad hominems etc.) will lead to the lowest speaks I can possibly give you and I will default to the other team. Please introduce yourself with your name, school, and pronouns before your round.

Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before round!

*audrey tsai paradigm !

add me to email chain: isabelle.cho123@gmail.com

Did PF for 4 years went to TOC quarterfinals on this unsc topic lol

Tech> truth

Weigh

Running prog arguments are risky, i don't vote for disclosure

I am unfamiliar with Ks run at your own risk

Hi! I'm Sarabeth (she/her), add me to the email chain: sarabethh516@gmail.com

I did PF for 4 years in high school. Treat me as tech> truth flay. I probably have not researched the topic but I'll vote for whatever as long as it's won on the flow, extended, and has warrants/evidence. I'm a big fan of logical arguments: smart analysis > unwarranted evidence.

- I can handle speed but I hate spreading. I won't flow off docs or overtime.

- I like collapsing, weighing, and extensions (including turns w impact). Defense is not sticky but if you point out smtn that was not responded to I'll flow it as conceded.

- Evidence ethics: Read properly cut cards and send properly cut cards. If you take years to find evidence your speaks will slowly tank (you can avoid this by just sending a speech doc beforehand, but I won't force you to do it). If you misconstrue evidence and your opponent points it out as an IVI I will give you an L20.

- Prefs: substance >>> theory > K > don't even try to run anything else. I didn't have much experience with prog so run them at your own risk.

- Be nice and have fun, if you are a douche or take years to find evidence, I'll tank your speaks. If you make the round unsafe or exclusionary I reserve the right to drop you.

- I probably agree with Sophia Kim.

Judge: Prince Jose
Background: Over 3 years of experience in speech and debate.
Philosophy: Prioritizes clear, structured arguments with effective communication.
Delivery: Emphasizes good eye contact and gestures.
Content: Values structured content with evidence and support. Memorable phrases, content recaps.
Persuasion: Engage the audience, include thrilling stories and surprises.
Dislikes: Disrespectful behavior and over-reliance on notes.
Advice: Advocate with conviction. Be daring in your presentation approach.
Feedback Promise: Committed to offering insights that foster growth and enhance speaking abilities.

Parent debater of 1 year.

Please talk slowly, I do not like "theory" or "counterplan" in PF. Please be kind! I expect a very respectful space.

tech > truth

MAKE SURE TO EXTEND YOUR CONTENTIONS AND RESPONSE OR THEY WILL BE DROPPED!!

be respectful & kind, please do not try to gaslight !!

i support kritiks, but I find theory like paraphrase theory to be ridiculous, as theory that introduces restrictions on how someone can layout or write their contention will not be tolerated

quirky args >>>>>

if you somehow bring up what you had for breakfast during the debate in a way that makes sense that's +.25 speaks

if instead of saying "drop this point" say "yeet this point out of the window" consistently you deserve +.5 speaks

Hello, I'm Arya Mirbaha.

Email: aryamirbaha@gmail.com.

Experience: Current Varsity Debater, Coaching Novice Debate, former Open, Novice, and JV Debater, Over 7 years involved in debate. I have also done speech for multiple years.

Preferences:

• Respect - Please be respectful at all times with your opponents. Do not be the individual to interrupt your opponents constantly. There is a line between argumentation and disrespect, and you should NEVER cross that line.
• Spreading - At the Novice Level, spreading (going extremely fast through your speech) should be limited. I do not want to see you going too fast where your opponents cannot understand what you are saying. You should ideally check with your opponent prior to the round starting regarding spreading. If your opponent and I cannot make up what you're saying, there's no point of saying it!
• Cross Examination - Cross is a great time to pick at your opponents arguments and extend your own while doing that. I listen to Cross and will take notes on Cross, so ensure that you do not forget about what was brought up in Cross as it could hurt you later on in the debate!
• Time Limits - Time limits are there to be followed. I give debaters a 15 second grace period from the time their speech ends. After the 15 seconds, I will not flow anything you say. For Cross, if a question has been asked right before the time limit runs out, it is expected that you respond to it, even if you surpass the time limit doing so - I am okay with that.
• Prep Time - Prep Time is there to be used! I have seen a lot of teams not use Prep Time, and it is a waste! I will time Prep so that there is no misunderstanding between both teams, although you are more than welcome to time for your own organization.
• Counter Plans - I do not accept any Counter Plans, especially at the Novice Level. If you do run one, and your opponent calls you out on it, I will side with your Opponent and disregard any information regarding your Counter Plan from my flow.
• Evidence - All your contentions/points should have evidence that is cited correctly. I will only ask for evidence if what you are saying seems too good to be true. If your opponent asks for evidence, you should be able to provide it to them in a timely manner.
• Speaking - This is your speech - be loud, be clear, emphasize important numbers or words! This will all help me and your opponents understand your contentions!
• Standard/Framework - I think it is a great idea to have framework, and I want to see why your framework should be used through the debate, and how your contentions relate to it!
• Impacts - I want unique and quantifiable impacts! I want to see what will happen as a result of your contention, and I want that to be clear.
• Weighing - I want both teams to try and weigh the debate, especially in Final Focus. I want to see where I should vote and why.
• Disclosure - I will disclose results at the end of rounds, unless it is against tournament rules. I will also give feedback to all competitors, including areas where they can improve, and areas where they did well.

Summary of Preferences - Make sure you respect everyone at all times. Do your best to ensure everyone understands what you're saying, and ask your opponents if they're ok with you spreading. Utilize Cross Examination as I will be listening and flowing it. Ensure you stay within your time limits during all speeches and crossfire. I will time Prep Time, and make sure you use it to your advantage! I do not allow Counter Plans. Make sure you have evidence! Frameworks or Standards are always encouraged. I want unique and quantifiable impacts. I also want to see where and why I should vote.

At the end of the day, this is your debate! Remember to have fun, learn from the debate, and do your best! If you have any questions, please let me know either by emailing me, or by asking me during the debate.

I'm a sixth-year debater and generally flay. I've only been debating in West Coast spaces for TOC. Flowing all speeches except for cx.

• Spreading is fine, just be cohesive. (Or just drop speech docs)
• I hate funky evidence ethics but I love indicts for those ethics! misreading or lying about cards will result in lowered speaker pts or an auto drop.
• Tech > Truth

Argument expectations -

Extensions:

Collapse to make all of our lives easier, PLEASE. Extend necessary link chains and impacts during summary; if only one team extends, that’s essentially an automatic win. If neither team extends through summary, I’ll evaluate based on previous speeches but both teams will lose speaker points.

Weighing:

impact analysis/world comparison/weighing in general is more likely to win you the round. Remember to warrant phrases like "timeframe" and "magnitude" instead of just throwing them around. If only one team weighs that’s a massive advantage for them. If neither team weighs, I’ll evaluate the arguments based on my own knowledge which will likely result in a decision you don’t like.

Other:

Signpost/roadmaps:

Just do it. I am not exactly well known for my ability to flow capably, so tell me where I should be looking instead of leaving me to find it on my own.

Theory(PF):

I will only evaluate good theory, so if it's run badly it will be an auto drop. You will definitely have to convince me why I should be voting for your progressive arg vs. the res at hand.

That being said, I am a passionate proponent of anti-disclosure theory! It’s your freedom to disclose just don’t force it on others. I will not be voting off of disclosure unless the other team completely ignores their theory argument. Try to define all interps and responsibilities. have fun with it!

Novice: Just don't run theory/Ks

Evidence:

I'll probably ask you to drop the card if you can't find it in 5 minutes max. Do not lie about your cards, even if you miscut it. If I find that a team falsified evidence, depending on the severity it could result in an automatic win for their opponents and/or contacting tab and their coach.

Non-PF Debaters:

I have 0 experience with parli, LD, cx, congress, literally any type of debate other than pf. Please explain rules to me and keep your opponents accountable. However, if your opponents violate a certain rule, you will need to bring up the rule on the NSDA website or the tournament rules.

add me to email chain: reba.prabhakhar@gmail.com

you don't have to ask if i'm ready before each speech, just assume I am

PF:

weigh

nothing new after summary

progressive args and spreading ok but don’t run disclosure. I do not care about disclosing at novice tournaments.

(if ur novice ask ur opponents before spreading on them, debate should be inclusive especially at the novice level)

extend all arguments, framework and defense that u want me to vote on - and explain why your arguments matter more (weigh)

Hi, I'm a high school student and I do pf. My email is ar42327@pausd.us if you're doing an email chain to share evidence.

I’ll be timing speeches and flowing during the round. It'll be helpful if you signpost and tell me which points you’re responding to. About evidence, arbitrary numbers/quotes aren’t enough. Make sure you explain why they’re relevant and significant to your points. Have well thought out weighing that really explains why your points matter more and why you opponent’s points are less important. Delivery isn’t terribly important to me, but please emphasize and repeat things you want me to 100% remember.

Most importantly, be nice and have fun! Good luck!

(if you can say "sweet potato" three times in the round, I’ll give you +0.1 speaks)

Hi! I'm in my fifth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team. I've solely debated in west coast circuits other than TOC. Flay (flow all speeches other than cross)

TLDR (READ THIS): Be polite, follow PF rules and evidence ethics, and have fun. The best rounds are when both teams can vibe together.

• Tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments or link chains that just logically don't make sense)
• Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be (I'll just drop the card after a few minutes)
• Send the fully cut card
• Good cards > good analytics > bad cards > bad analytics
• No "debater math." Seriously I will drop the card
• Fully extend (links and impacts with the card name) in summary and FF or I'll drop the argument
• Please weigh (more detail below)
• Collapse!!
• Just signpost and provide a brief offtime roadmap to make all our lives easier
• Theory, speed, evidence, discrim stuff below in more detail

General Preferences:

Time yourself. Turns can be extended on their own as long as your opponent also extends the contention you're turning, otherwise you have a bit more work to do about extending their link + impact. Voting on clever turns is really fun for me, just make sure to explicitly say "link/impact turn" so I flow it as offense.

Some of my favorite rounds to debate and judge have been because of interesting framing. Ideally, frameworks would be brought up in constructive but rebuttal at the latest. If no framework is brought up, I'll default to utilitarianism. Personally, I think frameworks about things like structural violence can be really effective if done correctly (tell me why it's so important), and good critiques of util can be really interesting. I love well-implicated overviews and interesting definitions, just make sure to explain them.

Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world, and no one wants that. Metaweighing is cool, I think more teams should metaweigh but it's not a huge deal if you don't.

Speed:

If you spread, I want your speech docs (send them to your opponents too if they ask). I will yell CLEAR if I can’t follow. Do NOT spread in novice. Regardless of your speed, please speak clearly.

Evidence:

Bad evidence will get dropped and if the evidence ethics is really bad, it may result in an auto drop, but you have to point out faulty evidence to me; otherwise I won’t evaluate it. Indicts are amazing if you're clear about them.

I won’t intervene unless I really have to, and I’ll take your evidence at face value (unless the evidence ethics is so bad it’s incomprehensible), so you have to indict the evidence if there’s any problem with it and directly tell me if you want me to call for it/evaluate it. There's no need for me to be part of your email chain/doc share unless there are evidence ethics violations.

Progressive arguments:

Novice: Do not run theory or Ks unless there is a really egregious violation. I will not vote on disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory in novice, that’s really exclusive to the debate space and it’s not suitable for a novice pool.

Varsity: Theory and Ks are fine. I think the critical evaluation of debate is really important but you still have to convince me why I should prefer your progressive argumentation over the resolution. At the highest levels of debate (TOC, nats, high elims), I’m more inclined to vote on anti-paraphrasing but I usually won’t vote on disclosure unless it really is a norm at that specific tournament and it’s very well argued.

Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round!

Yap with purpose.