Hi, I’m Amit! I’m a PF debater at Brooklyn Tech. I’m not too picky, but there are a few things I prefer!

email: amitkakumanu2009@gmail.com

(credit to Emma Smith for parts of this!)

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. I feel like explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

-- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

I am currently a JV PF Debater for Lakeland.

A little bit about me as a judge:

- I'm a flow judge, meaning that I can handle speed and understand debate theory and terminology.

- I listen but don't flow crossfire or use cross in my final considerations. This means that you should reference what happened in cross in your following speech otherwise I can't use it.

- Offtime roadmaps and signposting are greatly helpful. I don't record it in my flow but it helps me know what direction you'll be going with your points and what to expect next.

- You should always try to extend your arguments throughout your case as the debate progresses, but don't forget to effectively attack the opponent's arguments. Also, don't be afraid to collapse if needed.

- I'm big on framework and weighing. They tell your judge how to view the argument and directly compare the arguments presented, respectively. If no framework is introduced, I will default to utilitarianism.

- I always expect everyone to be respectful, mean or personal attacks are not allowed.

(TL;DR I am a tech judge, not a huge ran of theory or k and please extend properly if you want an argument evaluated in the round)

Hi! I am Steven (he/him) and I am a current Junior Varsity PF debater at Brooklyn Tech.

Add me to the email chain: slinkh5657@bths.edu

If you send speech docs with fully cut cards (for constructive and rebuttal) to minimize calling cards time (and add me to the email chain), +1 speaks

Here are just some of my preferences:

General

I am a tech > truth judge 99% of the time, which means that I flow everything throughout the round, even if I know it isn't true.

Please don't spread. I can handle a little speed, but not too fast, or else that will probably impact your speaks. Just speak thoroughly and clearly and you'll be happy with your speaks.

Don't worry, I will not flow crossfire, unless something that occurred in crossfire gets brought up in another speech. The only time I'll flow cross is if there is something I didn't get when flowing and its a clarifying question.

If you want a pic of my flow just ask after the round ends and I'll be more than happy to send it to you.

Please use all of your speech time, that's extremely important.

Constructive

• HAVE IMPACTS!!!
• Please don't run prog arguments - I'm not super familiar with them, with the exception of a Cap K. Also if your going to run theory, be VERY CLEAR about it, because I'm not super duper familiar with that either
• I'm fine with Frameworks - I've ran them a buncha times. If there is no framework or your framework isn't extended throughout the round, I default to utilitarianism, the most good for the most number of people

Rebuttal

• Signpost please
• Give me an off-time roadmap from here on forward, because it helps me as a judge. The second thing I love after signposting is off-time roadmaps and if you do them, you'll get good speaks. (If you don't know what this is just ask me before the round and I can tell you/teach you how to do one)
• For second rebuttal speaker, I would suggest sticking to frontlining -> refuting, but whatever works for you, just please signpost

Summary

• Extend your points from Constructive and Rebuttal otherwise it doesn't make it onto the flow and doesn't factor into my decision
• I'd prefer you collapse, just to make the round less messy and to give you more time in final focus to weigh (this is just something I like to do - I really highly suggest it)
• This is the latest in the round to start impact weighing. If you don't I will be very, very sad.

Final Focus

• Really, just tell me why you won the round
• Write my RFD for me and make sure to do impact weighing

Be respectful of your opponents and have fun in the debate round. If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them. Also, if you make me laugh or make a minions reference, +1 speaks. Also if you reference the movie up + .5 speaks.

Last thing, I enjoy a great clash on arguments throughout the round. If there is a lot of clash, I will give high speaks to everyone in the debate round. Have fun and if you have any questions don't be afraid to ask me, because after all, this is all a learning experience.

Hi, I'm Sophie and my pronouns are she/her. I'm a student at Hunter College High School and I currently debate circuit LD. Before, I did 2 years of PF debate in Middle School, mainly on a local level.

Email: sophie.liz.obrien@gmail.com

NYCUDL PF:

• Tech > Truth --> I'll vote on anything with a clear claim, warrant, impact as long as it's not outright problematic

• Speed: go nuts as long as you are clear and enunciate. Pls know your limits don’t speak insanely fast if you're just slurring your words at that point.

• I lean towards policy-style debate/affs. That isn’t to say I won’t vote on theory, Ks, etc, but policy is a sweet spot for me

• Weigh : make sure to do comparative weighing and provide well-explained link-level weighing. Saying "we o/ weigh on magnitude" and calling it a day is NOT weighing.

• If you don’t weigh, your not winning

• I appreciate it when weighing begins early in the round (even as early as rebuttal speeches). Saying your arguments outweigh in rebuttal is a great tactic to use on arguments that are more fundamentally true with lesser impacts

• Signpost clearly

• I shouldn't be trying to figure out which argument you are refuting

• Extend arguments (explain your links, impacts, etc)

• How am I supposed to vote for you if you dropped all your contentions

• For new debaters: Make new offensive and defensive arguments in rebuttal speeches. This might seem pretty obvious, but new debaters often have a tendency to go in circles re-explaining the same refute over again in different fonts and applying them to the entire case. This isn't to say cross-applying arguments is bad, in fact pls do cross-apply it is a good strategy. Just beware of repeating yourself and aim to think of new arguments that specifically relate to each contention. A rebuttal speech where I am almost always writing something down on my flow is a good one and I’ll give credit to that.

• Sort of related: I love turns and I think I would marry them if I could. Make them.

• I don't evaluate cross-fire and frankly, I really don’t care about it. If a new argument is made in cross-fire, it must be brought up again in a speech for it to be evaluated

• Just be respectful in cx?? I really hope I don’t need to tell you that.

• I place great weight on evidence transparency and have 0 tolerance for lying/misquoting evidence so if you have any fake cards delete them. now.

• If a team cards you, I expect immediate proof (no shuffling through/scrambling to get your cards together)

• I don’t insert myself into a round, but if I feel my ballot is weighted primarily on a piece of evidence, I will ask to see it (this is in extreme cases though, it is up to you to call for/challenge cards)

Extra:

• I would say the way I give out speaks is pretty generic. (Don’t give lower than a 27)

• Clarity and clash are very important to me and will be the biggest factor in your speaker points. I say clash because if you are a clear speaker, but don’t provide much substance in your arguments or new ideas to the debate round, I don’t consider that a “good speaker”

• If your team goes 2nd and you take prep right after the very 1st constructive speech, you are getting a 27 for speaks. Why? It's annoying

• Remember debate at the end of the day is a game and I really enjoy when debaters remain appropriate while also keeping it light-hearted!! If you can make a relevant joke or make me smile I'll defo up your speaks.

• If you can make a taylor swift or lana del rey reference…I will be very happy to say the least

Hello, I'll be your judge for this round. I'm a senior at Staten Island Tech with seven years of debating experience, and I'm also the founder and co-captain of Tech's debate team. I'm excited to judge your debate today, and I really aim for all of you to benefit from the feedback I will be providing. Here are a few pointers for your round: Maintain a clear speaking pace to ensure both your opponents and I can follow your arguments effectively. Let's get this round started!

Hi! I'm a freshman at Hunter College and I debated in high school for two years!

Reminders:

• I encourage you to stand while reading your speeches! (not mandatory if online)
• I will vote on whose impact weighs the most; scope, magnitude, reversibility, prerequisite, time frame, probability
• Ask for evidence! If you are unable to provide evidence for your argument, I will consider it invalid.
• I will judge you based on your speech and delivery, NOT crossfire, but remember to poke holes!!
• USE UP ALL YOUR SPEECH TIME! i will have to deduct speaker points if you have more or less a min remaining (reemphasise your points, read evidence, etc)
• I have no preference regarding speed or volume, as long as you enunciate your words!!

cashapp me $20 to get 30 speaker points ???? (this is a joke)

I am a LAY judge, I am new to judging but I will do my very best to judge your round. Please be respectful to myself and your opponents, and be aware that I struggle with flowing at high speeds. Please don’t go over 200 wpm, as I might not understand you. If I don’t understand what you’re saying, I will say “clear up” twice and then stop flowing.

Things to do:

Clear, strong impacts with real solvency

WEIGHING!

Things to not do:

“Prog” arguments (you can try but I will not vote for a team simply because I think their too smart for me)

Acting condescending towards your opponents will get you low speaker points.

Don’t lie about the debate- if they responded to your argument don’t call it dropped.

(My debater child helped me with jargon for this paradigm, don’t assume I know all the terms in round)