hey whats up guys

my name's alper, ive been debating for 4 years now

Mainly cal LD

FOR LD

Value/Value Criterion is very important - will only evaluate impacts under the framework of the round. If you win an extinction impact but don't tie it back to framework and why it matters, I WILL NOT VOTE ON IT.

Tech > truth, will vote on anything as long as you win the links to access your impact and then explain why it matters under your framework. (and i mean anything).

BIG EXCEPTION: I am a trad ld debater, I don't understand anything prog or circuit. You are welcome to try and read it anyways, if you do it well enough and clearly explain to me why I should vote for you then I will, but know that "first the interp, then the violation" means nothing to me.

Also I am fairly good with speed but only if you actually enunciate. To be safe, you should probably send speech docs if you are planning on going fast.

In cross just don't be annoying please. Perfectly fine to cut your opponent's off if they are rambling, but if they are actually answering your question let them talk. Being annoying in cross = less speaks.

Please please please actually have clash!!! Read arguments that directly tell me why your opponent's arguments are wrong/don't matter.

Weigh and extend in your final speeches. Don't be afraid to collapse on arguments you are losing - I think this is super strategic and a sign of a good debater. You should be telling me what arguments matter the most in the round, why they matter the most, why you won them, and how that means you won the round under the framework. Basically make it as easy as possible for me to vote for you; write my ballot for me.

If neither debater does this and at the end of the debate I'm left with a bunch of arguments with no weighing/connecting back to framework then I will default to evaluating the round like a speech round: best speaker wins. Please don't make me do this, I hate judging speech.

FOR EVERY OTHER DEBATE EVENT:

Don't run theory. I am a lay judge. I understand nothing except argumentation. Don't be annoying in cross. Be respectful and don't insult your opponents. Read arguments, clash, collapse, weigh, extend. Be good!

Funny:

higher speaks if you make jokes/good references in round
+1 speak if you tell me a good knock knock joke before round
-1 speak if you mention lebron james

have fun guys, debate is supposed to be fun! joke around, laugh, talk with your opponents and get to know them a little. lighten up.

pf at leland

add me to email chain: heatherchang16@gmail.com

flow, tech>truth

pf:

look at jeannine yu paradigm, i agree with basically everything

anything you want to be evaluated has to be in a speech

• i only look at evidence if a team points it out
• if something's in cross, it needs to be in your speech for me to flow it

don't be rude during cross

time yourself

have fun and ask me any questions before round!

bring me boba for 30 speaks

not pf:

treat me like a lay

First and foremost, it is crucial to establish a shared understanding of the topic at hand. Before any meaningful debate can take place, we must ensure that all parties involved have a clear and accurate understanding of the subject matter. This includes a thorough examination of key terms and concepts, as well as an exploration of the historical and cultural context in which the issue has arisen.

Once a shared understanding has been established, it is important to engage in active listening and respectful dialogue. Debating is not about winning or losing, but about exchanging ideas and perspectives in a constructive and meaningful way. It is essential to approach debate with a spirit of intellectual humility, recognizing that we all have something to learn from one another.

Of course, no debate can be truly meaningful without a careful analysis of evidence. As such, it is essential to approach the topic at hand with a critical eye, evaluating the quality and reliability of the evidence presented. This may involve examining empirical research, analyzing statistical data, or reviewing historical documents and texts.

Furthermore, I believe that it is essential to approach debate with a multidisciplinary perspective. Many of the most pressing issues of our time require insights from a wide range of fields, including economics, sociology, psychology, and political science. As such, it is essential to engage with a diverse array of viewpoints and disciplines in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.

In conclusion, I believe that debate is a crucial component of intellectual discourse, and that it has the power to promote critical thinking, intellectual humility, and the pursuit of truth. As such, I urge all participants to approach this debate with an open mind, a commitment to respectful dialogue, and a willingness to engage in rigorous analysis of evidence from a multidisciplinary perspective.

but... I will take account into my ballot if you talk about the bee movie or finding Nemo. It will heavily boost your ballot because I like to see the creative way they are incorporated into speeches. If you didn't watch either of these make a random joke in your speech but I will dock points if it isn't funny. I want to be addressed as either Judge or Supreme Ruler

Policy: I enjoy clash. Once your time is up IT IS UP don't say anything after the 8 minutes including "Therefore I urge affirmative vote". EXTEND IMPACTS

PF: Little experience but remember evidence claims are better than analysis (at least for me). Once time is up stop your speech. EXTEND IMPACTS

LD: Not much experience but will try to flow

Parli: Never judged or know rules so explain in depth

Hello! My name is Annika and I currently do Public Forum debate at the highschool level.

_______

What I look for:

Strong argumentation

Swagger drip

Automatic 29.9 speaks if you have a cool pun or joke

What not to do:

Don't be rude during cross

No faking evidence

Always include me in evidence chains --> annikameih@gmail.com

Best of luck ! :)

Policy Stuff: If you spread, send docs. I'll flow speeches like every other debate format. If you see this paradigm, in round the words are "Vote Affirmative." I'll flow on a google doc to save time for me. Feel free to use any jargon that would suffice your policy self.

PF Debater of 2 Years and counting

A lot of tournaments on the national circuit both hs and ms divisions

Debate is a game, winning is cool but shouldn't be the main reason why you choose to compete, make sure to have fun. Don't use gendered language and read TW&CW when needed.

--Serious Debate Stuff--

Tech>Truth, make sure your clear with your narrative and avoid contridictions

Evidence: I'll buy it and trust your telling the truth. I only look at evidence when its highly debated upon, evidence challenge from opponents, or any reason why that piece of evidence should be seen by me.

My decision making calculus is very simple, and its just which side convinces me more with offense of their side, defense on the opponents, and weighing. Weighing is usually how I decide "close" debates.

Fun Stuffs:

Leland HL is the best novice team on the circuit, just call out for their Gupta '20 card and you'll be mesmerized. Leland HL gold toc 2023,2024,2025 champs!

Treat me like a parent judge for any event other than policy; I have no idea what your event is and how to judge it. Thus, judge instruction, especially in the rebuttals for debate ("write my ballot for me") + clear & articulate speaking & presentational skills (for any event) will be key to obtaining the W from me as your judge

For policy---Circuit or lay debate is fine with me

Lay: Speak clearly, use gestures, and maintain eye contact. Also, cx is very important for me when judging lay debates. Rebuttal speeches should have a lot of judge instructions and "simplification of arguments" so there is a clear stock issue / argument to vote off.

Circuit: Any arguments, policy or kritikal are ok, though I prefer judging Policy OFF debates. I am also not very familiar with K-AFF & k v k debates and I definitely dislike tricks / troll arguments (unless its a troll round lol). Again, rebuttal speeches should boil down to one or 2 OFF for the neg / one or 2 scenarios for the aff, with impact calc, highlighting concessions, and summarizing arguments.

This goes for all events---Do not be disrespectful or condescending towards any of your opponents (that includes but not limited to misogynistic, homophobic, racist, demeaning behavior). Any such behavior will merit a vote for the opposing side.

I like good debating where both teams are answering each other's arguments rather than ignoring arguments and presenting your own. Saying a lot of incoherent evidence without expanding on it or explaining it should also be avoided. Competitiveness is good but attack your opponent's arguments, not your opponent.

I've only seen/done policy debate.

Any mention against cheese automatically L30s. Any mention for cheese automatic win of the round (W30s).

If you condemn cheese or do not mention, L 20's. Say at some point why cheese is the greatest invention ever W 30's. If both teams mention how amazing cheese is, the team that comes up with more pros uses more creativity, and further indulging examples wins the round.

rayan sengupta is a lifer. if you say he is a lifer, I will hack for you.

Congressional Debate:

I will not automatically give you a bad/good score just because you gave a constructive, rebuttal, or crystal, nor will I automatically give good score for POing.

For POing, I will consider your election speech (if applicable), your procedures, your orders of the day speech (if applicable). For time signals, I'm fine with anything as long as its consistent, clear, and efficient. Please do not be biased, I will mark you down for that. For precedence and recency, make sure that you are accurate and efficient. For motions, make sure that you use the correct procedures, preferably without referring to a rule book/guide. Overall, the PO should have good command of the chamber, and ensure that it runs efficiently.

For presentation, I will consider walking as part of presentation, please make full use of the space given. I will also take into account gestures, eye-contact, reading, and vocal dynamics.

For cross-examination, I'm looking for good and confident answers, and thoughtful questions that actually attack the speaker's speech. Useless questions will only harm your rank.

For arguments, it should be convincing, and warranted. Every claim should be backed up with logic and if applicable, evidence. Impacts must be explained clearly for impact weighing (impact calculus), something like "kill millions of people" cannot be used as part of weighing.

For authorships and sponsorships, I want you to actually explain the legislation, and not just give a "first aff".

For rebuttals, I'm looking for clash and refutations, instead of just name-dropping.

For late-round speeches, it should be clarifying, and entirely new arguments should not be added.

The rhetoric should stand out, and should not just be a filler.

I am a 10th grader at Leland High school and have been doing speech and debate since I was in fourth grade. I like to play chess in my free time and will consider adding speaker points if you make good chess references in your speech.

Don't panic, this is most likely your first tournament, and you will do well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hiiii

Don’t be problematic.

I have 3 years of experience with Parli debate at Leland. Be organized, signpost, speak clearly, and weigh. I prefer on-case debate; please refrain from running Kritiks and only run Theory when it is absolutely necessary.

Hi! First of all, good luck and have fun! For novice debate, do whatever you practiced! Don't worry about the more techy parts of the debate!

A little bit about myself: I've done high school policy for 4 years now and a bit of public forum in middle school. I will flow your arguments so try not to drop any! I can tolerate speed, but please do not start spreading unless it is a circuit tournament (but I probably won't be judging that).

Be kind to everyone. I will not tolerate any rudeness or offensive comments.

General (updated for Novice Debate):

- I probably don't understand all the details/ins and outs of the resolution of your event (LD, PF, or Parli) - try not to use debate jargon that someone not well versed in the topic area might not understand (unless it was under the cjr/water/NATO/econ ineq topics)

- Try your best! You'll do fine <3

- I won't flow cx unless you bring it up in one of your speeches

- Read offense! if you only read defense, I'll be sad :(

- Weigh your impacts!

For policy (!!!):

- I will be flowing and this is the most familiar debate format to me, so please try to elaborate on your arguments.

- Give an offtime roadmap before you start (aka an order) so I can flow your arguments, otherwise I will just write them down based on how I hear them (and the debate might get messy and I might miss one of your arguments).

- Read AT LEAST the author and date of publication before reading cards.

- Signpost!

- Frame the debate for me! Make it clear to me how you want me to vote, otherwise, I will vote based on arguments and what I think is a better argument.

• net benefits?
• stock issues?
• any other f/ws?

- Make it clear what your plan is! I will try to only vote on arguments brought up in the debate, and if I don't know your plan, I cannot vote for you.

- I love smart solvency takeouts, but be sure to elaborate on how the plan links to that though!

- CPs should have a counterplan text and clear net benefit. DAs should have AT LEAST a link and an impact. I will buy uniqueness if worded well. T should have a definition, standards/violation, impact, AND why your definition is better. Ks are cool but I personally don't know too much about each k :(

Something something win the flow

Hi,

Here's my email for the email chain or evidence doc: danielxupublicforum@gmail.com

For PF debate:

I have some PF experience, so I'll be mostly going off of flow and argumentation, not off speaking. I'm not completely a flow judge, so please don't spread your case; make it intelligible and comprehensible for most people

Tech over truth. However, I will vote off good analysis and carded evidence, and whether each argument has clear warrants and makes logical sense.

Timing: Keep track of your own time! Unless you go 30+ seconds overtime, tracking time is the responsibility of both teams, not the judge. I won't be voting off of it.

Extensions: Make sure to extend all your cards and arguments that you want to collapse on through summary and final focus, rebuttal for better consolidation.

Collapsing: Consolidate your arguments and do voters (tell me what is the most important/impactful argument in the round). Most of the time, I just vote off the later speeches.

Frontlines: I expect second rebuttal to frontline. I also don’t believe defense is necessary if you did a good job of it in rebuttal, but a brief mention of it is good enough for me.

Weighing: Please terminalize your impacts, it will be easier for me to submit a ballot at the end.

New Arguments/Responses: Don't do it past 1st summary. If you read it in 2nd summary or final focus, I will not flow it. Disadvantages can be read up to 1st summary, no later than that.

Plans: No, I will drop them. It's against most PF rules, so if you like plans, switch to Policy debate.

Hey!

I am currently a varsity debater in LD at Leland, and I also have some experience in PF and Policy. I don't have any particular preferences, as long as arguments are well-explained and have impacting. I do not do circuit nor have experience with theory, K, spreading etc, so I would prefer not to judge it, but I'll try my best.

Look forward to a great debate!

debated pf on the nat circuit from 2020-2024 under Leland YC and Leland LY

email chain: jeannineyu@ucla.edu

flow

tech>truth, tabula rasa

How I evaluate:

1. who is winning the weighing/framing?—I go to their case/other weighed lines of offense
2. are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I look to the other case/lines of offense.
3. are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I presume to evaluating like a lay judge (which team was more "convincing" lol) unless you tell me otherwise

Must Dos:

-weigh comparatively (the earlier the better!) I will default to the team with weighing even if they only have a marginal amount of access to their offense. my fav weighing mechs were prereqs, impact magnifiers, timeframe metaweighing (i am a huge sucker for going for and weighing conceded turns in summary) if you do impressive weighing/round vision i will give you crazy high speaks

-signpost

-extend everything you want me to vote for in summary and FF (defense is not sticky) do NOT extend through ink, if your opponents do it just call them out, no need to respond to it

-do full link chain extensions, i will be very unwilling to vote on shadow extensions

Progressive:

-not a huge fan of theory, but willing to evaluate reasonable shells for actual abuse (don't make me judge a disclo or paraphrase round please)

-i read only 1 topical K in my senior year with a friend who is a much better K debater than me, i'm willing to evaluate Ks but a) at your own risk b) send me all docs so i can follow along

-tricks and friv = bad speaks

Other:

-I can handle reasonable amounts of speed but prefer you to not go over 200 wpm. send a doc for fast speeches. you must be coherent and actually read what's on the doc for me to flow it

-average speaks 28.5-29.5, goes up or down based on how you debate. higher speaks for paper speeches!

-I'll flow responses that begin before the end of the speech time, anything after I will strike from the flow if the other team calls it out

-to minimize intervention, I only look at evidence if it's indicted in a speech or if anyone asks me to

-bring food for 30s

-don't be mean, rude, or discriminatory

please ask if you have any questions! :))