Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

I read heg good please don't hurt me

I debated PF for four years (2016-2020) at Ravenwood HS in Brentwood, TN

I have some general expectations for round (copied mostly from Callan Hazeldine and Brian Zhu):

1.) The singular most important thing for me is warranting. Please do not just extend taglines and author names. I might not have them down and I'll be really confused and upset. This means when you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what that evidence says. I like critical thinking. Smart, well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time. If you are winning the warrant debate, you are probably winning the round.

2.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument. Even in front of "flow" judges I believe there is an advantage to the "narrative" style of debate (even when combined with line-by-line).

3.) First summary should extend defense now that there is an extra minute. My philosophy of the 3 min summary is that you should go for the same content but with more explanation and depth, however some rounds may require new arguments to be introduced in first summary for example. Also frontline turns at least in second rebuttal, that'd be pretty cool.

4.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. Many rounds I have to intervene and do work for the teams as they don't tell why their arguments are more important than their opponents. If teams don't weigh, I tend to give more credence to the first speaking team as they are still somewhat disadvantaged, but with 3 min summaries I am less lenient. Also on weighing, I think of weighing in layers, beginning with probability. You need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.

5.) I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. For example, an argument about a conventional war seems more persuasive to me than an argument about a nuclear war. That being said, I will not punish you if – and I would even encourage you to – make novel and counter-intuitive arguments; I just expect that you will put in the work to persuade me.

6.) Please signpost! It makes it really hard for me to flow if you don't signpost. And if I can't flow, it makes it hard for me to evaluate the round. I'll likely miss what you're saying and we'll both be frustrated at the end of the round because you'll think I made the wrong decision and didn't consider what you said when in reality, I couldn't because I struggled to flow it.

7.) Chill out in round. No need to be overly aggressive and stuff, that doesn't really appeal to me. Especially in crossfire.

8.) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in the debate community (and really any community).

9.) Please don't spread. I hate it. Even in the rounds when I went fast as a competitor, I didn't enjoy debating at all. I'm also a fairly slow typer and I rarely have paper while I'm judging. If you absolutely have to spread, tell everyone before the round and make sure your opponents are ok with it, and send speech docs. Still, if you're going way too fast, I'll clear you.

10.) Please avoid progressive argumentation in front of me. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to evaluate these, but I also don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene (drop them) as necessary. I am unlikely to vote for theory, but if your opponents are being abusive, address it as a warranted voter, I prefer not to evaluate shells. I will not vote for Ks. If you run tricks in front of me, I will drop you immediately on the lowest possible speaks. If you rely on progressive argumentation because you're not good enough at substance, that's your decision, just make sure to strike me or else we'll both be very unhappy.

11.) If I suspect you are reading progressive arguments against a team that doesn’t understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I will drop you on the lowest possible speaks.

12.) Please don't be abusive. Probably the most abusive strategy is reading new contentions in rebuttal and disguising them as overviews. This will make me very unhappy. My unhappiness is amplified if this occurs in the second rebuttal. I will flow these but will not cast my ballot off them unless there is NOTHING else on the flow I can vote off. I am looking for reasons to not vote for these. My threshold for what counts as a good response to these is extremely low. PLEASE feel free to call this behavior out. Furthermore, I don't like 3FFs and postrounding, I'll answer questions, but after a certain point it's just exhausting for everyone involved.

13.) Hate calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses.

I don't think anything here deviates too much from what could be expected as a "first year out" judge but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Don't forget to have fun in round!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

above all, be nice

Frank Ocean lyrics guarantee 30s for both members of the team

message me for questions

hattieb@gmail.com <3

Background

I did 4 years of PF for Gig Harbor High School (Gig BK), competing on the local and national circuit with relative success. I am currently a student at the University of Washington.

TL;DR

Tech > Truth. Warrant your arguments. PLEASE weigh. Signpost - I need to know where you are. Speed is ok.

Wear what you want. Feel free to enter the room, set up, and flip before I arrive.

Don't be a dick. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know!

Case/Rebuttal

1. If you are clear, I can flow speed. If you spread, I expect you to be able to provide a speech doc if asked.

2. Please warrant your arguments. Good logical warrants beat bad evidence imo.

3. I will evaluate arguments under any presented framework as long as the framework is established early and well extended. If there are two competing frameworks, please tell me which one I should prefer and why.

4. I consider arguments that are dropped in rebuttal conceded - but you can still outweigh a conceded arg.

5. I think theory and K debate can be hard to do in PF, but I will evaluate theory arguments and kritiks to the best of my ability if you run them :)

Summary/Final Focus

1. WEIGH. PLEASE.

1. If there are ten arguments on the flow but no weighing, it is a lot harder to evaluate than if you only have one argument on the flow but weighed well.

2. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Please don't be lazy, do actual comparative analysis and even justify why I should prefer your weighing over theirs.

3. Don’t just weigh impacts - weigh links. Tell me why your link to the impact is stronger than any links your opponents go for, AND tell me why your impact is more significant than theirs.

2. I will only vote on arguments extended in both summary and final focus. However,

1. First summary does not have to extend defense for it to be in the final focus, but should interact with defense to the extent that the second rebuttal frontlined. If second rebuttal doesn’t frontline, you can extend defense straight to FF.

2. To extend a turn as offense, even if it was dropped, it must be mentioned in summary.

3. When extending, do not just extend author names and taglines - try to also extend the warrants of your arguments and why your impacts matter.

4. No new arguments in final focus (unless first final focus is addressing something new from second summary).

Cross

I generally will pay attention to cross, but if there is something in cross you really want me to evaluate, bring it up in a speech.

Evidence

1. I prefer if you do not paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round.

2. Please read the author's name and date.

3. I will only call for evidence if you tell me to, so if you believe an opponent is misrepresenting a card, tell me to call for it.

4. Evidence exchange should be quick; if you can't find your evidence i'm dropping it.

Speaks

Speaker points are dumb, I'll probably give you a 30. However, points go down if you're unnecessarily rude.

*I will generally disclose who won, and feel free to post round me if you disagree with the decision.*

Email: griffinbird19@gmail.com

Also if you're looking for private coaching or a new team coach hmu, I am open to it if available :)

alec.j.boulton.molero@vanderbilt.edu

My name is Alec, you can call me that and not "judge" <3

-General-

Tech > truth, "tabula rasa" whatever.

Make these rounds interesting. Debate is a game, have fun with it!

Postround.

Cool with anyone speaking in cross.

Ignore my facial expressions.

If you think something is missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging. You can also ask me paradigm questions in-round, but I won't give answers that will advantage one team.

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez who says M4A grows the economy" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Be quick with evidence or read off cards/send card docs, I'll hard dock speaks.

-Traditional-

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline defense, just offense (including implications and weighing).

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is high. Clear up mess, I'm not voting on unarticulated implications. Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact.

-Progressive-

I increasingly feel the need to specify that I have a bar for warranting in progressive debate: understand what you're saying. Don't assume I'll vote on your shortcuts. Nothing to be scared of, if you think you'd normally be fine you shouldn't need to change your debating. Anything is fine, just be clear with offs and actually make warrants.Think through what you're doing and try to explain your position to me as though the goal was to fully get me to understand your argument.

If the other team didn't explicitly agree to have a prog debate and they make any abuse claim, I'll drop you. The exception is in-round violations that require theory, but in that case at least be clear pre-speech about what you want to do.

Speech by speech responses are fine, extensions start in summary.

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly bias and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read. I'll judge those debates.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.

If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of why you are debating. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Trust yourself. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

-Speaks-

If you care about this (which you should!!!), here are some things you can do to up your speaks:

- dap up your opponents (sportsmanship!)

- be nice (or really just don't benot nice)

- don't steal prep time, it's always obvious

- have your evidence ready

- play fair

- literally just don't give me a reason to drop your speaks. I'm not trying to give out 30s, but I like giving higher-end speaks when I see genuine debating and real attempts to engage with this activity :)

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Debated for 4 years at Anderson High School in Austin Texas in Public Forum and graduated in 2020

January 21: I DO NOT KNOW THE TOPIC please explain anything that is not common knowledge

Debate is a game:

Speed threshold: ~275 wpm

If you are going above 260-ish I would like a speech doc

Any theory or kritik that is being read should be sent to everybody in the round via speech doc

Second rebuttal has to frontline any turns or they are conceded

First summary only has to extend defense frontlined in second rebuttal, but it makes it easier to vote if they do it either way

IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though

Theory:

I default competing interps, no RVIs

I am ok with any shell that you want to read

I believe that disclosure is true, pretty easy to win a round on disclosure theory in front of me

Very receptive to paraphrasing bad as well

Kritiks:

I have an okay understanding of the literature and know how to evaluate a K within the round, but you should really explain the warranting to me if it isn't a stock and well-known kritik

If you have a wiki, have read the K previously, and still haven't disclosed it, I will drop you

Framing:

I will not accept carded framing for the first time in first summary

If both sides link in, please weigh and don't just say you link in better

Speaks:

I will give very high speaks unless you do something that is heinous

TLDR: I like smart narrative tech debates. But you do you!

Hi! I'm Zara (she/her) and my email is zarachapple (at) gmail.com. I debated PF for Dalton (C)Y from 2017-2020, ran Beyond Resolved, coached for PFA, and now I study Public Policy and Sociology.

Don't be bigoted, don't be mean, respect pronouns + use content warnings. If I make this round/tournament safer or more accessible, please reach out, and I'll do what I can!

.·:*¨༺ ༻¨*:·.

Debate is a game and that game is Jenga. Collapse!

Procedure: Preflow, track your prep, and don't skip cross. I'll disclose decisions/speaks/comments as the tournament allows and give feedback, but don't post-round me.

Getting Good Speaks: Signpost everything, especially weighing/off case args. Implicate weighing/responses to your opponent's case. Crossfire shows how well you know your own arguments. I strongly prefer analytical responses that go after the structure of your opponent's arguments to prep-outs and card dumps.

Speed: Check with all teams/judges. My limit is ~220 WPM and I won't flow arguments I didn't hear.

Evidence: Your evidence probably isn't as good as you make it, but I won't evaluate issues with things I'm not asked to look for. Good analytics >>> unwarranted evidence. I'm chill with paraphrasing when it explains something more efficiently.

Theory: I am familiar with and will evaluate theory. I have high standards for reasonability, and argumentation still matters. Please don't make me intervene on vibes because your theory arguments aren't extended, warranted, and/or implicated. Theory isn't an RVI unless you make args otherwise.

Ks/Progressive Arguments: I really believe most policymaking approaches are problematic, so I welcome these arguments, and I'm familiar with most authors read in PF. That said, I have more experience judging LARP rounds, and I see their educational value too. PF's structure isn't conducive to Ks so I understand if you just explain the role of your argument, but I would encourage you to focus on strong links and alternatives.

Misc: I'm a Cancer Sun, Scorpio Moon, Pisces Rising. I judge nothing like Ben.

Good luck, and have fun!

UPDATED for Milpitas 2023: I don't judge frequently anymore nor do I really know what the norms in the circuit are these days, but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on. Overall, please use common sense. I can probably comfortably flow up to around 275 wpm with clarity and signposting.

About Me: Debated PF and Parli for 3 years for Nueva, was ~tech~, I now coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game, tech > truth. Debate however you would like as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have specific questions and put me on the email chain even though I probably won't read anything (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Super Short Version:

1. I am best at judging technical case debate (and probably enjoy it more) but I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed/prog are both fine.

2. I prefer cut cards/direct quotes - you can paraphrase but don't misconstrue evidence. Don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics.

3. I prefer that at a minimum you respond to all offensive arguments read in the previous speech. I won't necessarily consider arguments dropped, but I have a much higher threshold for responses if they come later.

Full Prefs:

1. WEIGHING: Probability weighing is not real - the link debate is the probability weighing.

- "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not also real. I will both not evaluate it and also drop your speaks each time you say it. A team does not win because their impact has a number.

- Please don't only drop buzzwords on me. Words like magnitude/scope/timeframe don't mean anything to me without actual comparison done between the arguments. Similarly, if different weighing arguments are unresolved PLEASE METAWEIGH.

2. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with citations. Do not send your opponents a link I will give you a 25. I will call for cards if they are relevant and disputed without resolution.

- I will give you an L25 if I notice/your opponent points out misconstruction that is significant. How much I discount a piece of evidence increases linearly with how sketchy it is.

- I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants too because its good debate.

3. PROGRESSIVE: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory, I haven't really engaged with K debate since graduating so while I can probably still evaluate the debate, you'll want to slow down, simplify things, and do extra warranting (especially if it's anything nuanced i.e. not security or cap).

- I don't have any defaults - you need to read the arguments (yes this means K/Theory = Case if no a priori argument is read). If arguments necessary for the decision are not read I will intervene up to a threshold and then presume if unresolved.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices - use common sense. This also means that my threshold for "we can't engage" responses increases as the "assumed" level of the debate increases (i.e. I'm not going to give you sympathy in quarters at a bid tournament)

- UPDATE FOR THEORY: IMO it's impossible to go for both a shell and case in FF effectively - you just don't have enough time. If you're going to read theory, either collapse on it or extend no RVIs and kick the shell - don't make a half-hearted attempt at going for both.

4. PRESUMPTION (is this still a thing idk): My default ROTB is to vote for the team that did the better debating. I think defaults like “first speaking team has a disadvantage” are intervention, so if no team has offense, neither of you debated better. You can obviously argue that one team should "get" presumption, but absent any such args, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

5. POSTROUNDING: totally ok as long as you're respectful, I think it's educational and I'm happy to defend my decision. Also happy to discuss after the round through email. I will buy you food or something if you can convince me that I was wrong (unfortunately I can't change the decision sorry).

email: seungjohcho@gmail.com

PF paradigm:

I did PF for 4 years, and I did Big Questions for a few weeks at L C Anderson High School. I won both NSDA Nats and TFA State.

Just do whatever you planned on doing. Spreading is fine as long as you are clear. If you aren't good at spreading, first of all, you really shouldn't be doing it in PF, but if you really need to and you know you are bad at it, save yourself the L and flash me the doc you are reading. I value "tech over truth", in the sense that I will vote purely based on the ink on the flow, and I am willing to buy arguments that may not be true at all in the real world, as long as they were well articulated on the flow.

I don't flow cross fires at all, so unless you have an audience to please, I'd say just chill out a bit on cross fires. They won't really affect my decision. Also yes, I realize I was an aggressive debater myself, but if you're straight up being rude, I will dock speaks, which you really don't want from me because I generally give good speaks, so getting bad speaks from me will make you look even worse.

Make sure you weigh and you explain to me why you think you won the round by Final Focus, as I do not want to have to do that for you, especially on topics where I probably don't have any prior topic knowledge.

I will call for cards that you have asked me to call for, or cards that seem sketchy that are central to the round. In most cases, however, I will default to whatever the debaters tell me their cards say, so make sure you stay on top of that.

You do not have to extend defense if it is dropped. If it is addressed, however, I will obviously expect you to address it in speech if you are going for it.

Make sure you are sign posting.

Also please let me know where on the flow you will be starting your speech so that I can start flowing it well.

If you read frivolous theory, keep in mind that I probably will not weigh it unless it is completely dropped/inadequately responded to. I am also not a fan of disclosure theory in PF. That is not to say I won't evaluate it by default, but also run at your own risk.

And finally, everything you want me to vote on should be extended all the way to final focus. Even if it was dropped, if you do not extend it in final focus, I will not default you the win on an argument.

If you have any other questions for me, feel free to ask before the round!

LD Paradigm:

Read PF paradigm, should give you a sense of my debate background maybe how you should adapt.

Plans, CPs are all totally fine

Theory, Ks, more tech arguments are all good with me. Just do whatever you planned on doing.

Spreading is totally fine.

I made it to UIL LD State once, so post-round me as hard as you want, as long as it is educational.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain)

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

• PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
• Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
• Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
• University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
• Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

• I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
• The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
• I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
• Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
• Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

• Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards is the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
• Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
• Your cases should be sent to the email chain in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
• The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
• Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
• My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
• I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
• You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

• Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
• Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
• Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
• Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
• Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
• The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
• I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

• Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
• I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
• Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
• "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
• I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

• I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
• Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
• I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
• I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

• Paraphrasing.
• I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
• I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
• Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
• The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
• The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
• If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

• I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
• I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
• If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

debate success does not matter! be a good person! have fun!

hi! my name is sara catherine and i debated for altamont in pf for 3 years. i now coach privately and at debate camps over the summer. i also founded beyond resolved, which is an organization that seeks to combat inequalities in the activity. with that, i care a lot about making this round fun and accessible to you - please let me know what i need to do to make that happen.

things you should know about how i evaluate rounds:

1. the easiest way to lose my ballot is to say something racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. i think it is my job as a judge to make the round a valuable educational environment and a safe environment for both teams - that cannot happen when you make generalizations about groups of people or speak for others. i will do my best to intervene when necessary.

2. the second easiest way to lose my ballot is by not doing proper extensions. i am the judge that will not vote for you if whatever argument you are going for (link and impact) is not fully extended in summary. frontlining is not extending. if neither team does proper extensions i usually have to intervene - don't make me do that!

3. here is a breakdown of how i vote: i evaluate the weighing debate first. whoever wins the weighing debate tends to win the round. if there is no weighing or the weighing is awash, i vote for the cleanest piece of offense. if there is no offense, i presume first speaking team. if you want me to presume differently, tell me why.

other things:

1. first half of the round

second rebuttal needs to answer any offense argument (turns, disads, etc) or i consider it conceded. if you are going to concede a delink to get out of a turn, that also has to happen in second rebuttal.

first summary does not have to extend unanswered defense. i evaluate new frontlines from the second speaking team in rebuttal and second summary but have a higher threshold for frontlines in second summary (i.e. your frontline to the argument needs to be better if it comes up later in the round).

2. second half of the round

any offense must be extended in summary and final focus for me to evaluate it.

i will not vote on turns that are not impacted and weighed.

i don't evaluate new weighing in second final focus.

3. argumentation

i am fine with progressive argumentation if it is presented in a way that is accessible to your opponents. i don't like theory that is not specific to the round or punishes teams for following debate norms, i.e. disclosure theory, paraphrasing theory. i will still evaluate it if it's clean - i just won't like it.

please give proper content warnings for anything that could either a. trigger someone or b. would force a team to debate against their own identity - please ask me how to give a PROPER content warning that allows people in the room to remain anonymous when objecting to a case.

i will only call for cards if you tell me to. i will call for every card you tell me to call for.

i'm pretty okay with speed (i can handle probably max 275ish wpm if it's clear).

other things that don't always affect the way i vote but are my opinions about debate:

preference for narrative debate - this doesn't mean i'm not "tech", it means i like arguments laid out in a way that makes sense and i like arguments to be WARRANTED in every speech.

preference for frontlining in second rebuttal - i don't think it is strategic to frontline everything. imo you only need to frontline offense and responses that apply to the argument you are going for and any weighing that applies to that argument.

implications are key - tell me what your argument means for the round and how it functions. most of the time when i have to intervene it is because teams did not implicate their arguments fully.

probability weighing is not weighing. it is analytical defense. you can still do ""probability weighing"" but it's not actually a weighing argument!

ask me any questions in round, or email me at sara.c.cook.23@dartmouth.edu

feel free to shoot me an email after round - i am happy to answer any questions.

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

I debated throughout high school for Campbell Hall and I worked this summer at the Public Forum Academy (https://www.publicforumacademy.com/). I'm now a sophomore at Vanderbilt University woohoo. This paradigm is a slightly modified version of Sandeep Shankars lol!

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be somewhat sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but if the response comes in second summary, a more well-explained response would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more.

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final focus consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

PLEASE don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well. With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interpretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

Even though as a debater I went fairly fast, I really don't like crazy speed. If you have a real need for speed, just make sure it's clear. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

I will never read a speech doc in public forum. If I couldn't understand what you were saying, that's on you

Tech vs Truth:

I'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well.

Miscellaneous:

I vote for the status quo on presumption

I will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

I am wholly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me. I've had more then a few teams ignore this and I'm telling you, it really didn't serve them well. I'll try my best but that's all I can do.

Speaks - they'll be based on your ability to convince me rhetorically, not necessarily on your strategy. This is still Public Forum Debate, it's the name of the game. Have respect for the game hehehe

Crossfire:

I will be paying attention to crossfire, unless I am obligated to write down comments within the ballot. I believe that crossfire is a key part of the debate round, and any concessions and answers to questions will be binding.

please ask any questions you may have before the round! wooohoo have fun

Background

I'm a college student (Oxford '23 lets go!!), former national circuit debater, and former PF captain at Ardrey Kell High School. I placed in the top 16 at CFLs 2019, and qualified for TOC Gold in 2020 (didn't attend because I graduated early RIP).

General

- I will not vote on electoral feasibility or electoral probability. You can't prove to me that Trump or Biden will win. Please don't try.

- Be funny, but don't be a jerk. Yes, that includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, using ad-hominem attacks, and shouting over your opponent. I'm not sure how well this applies for zoom debating, but I guess we'll find out.

- Please, please, please speak clearly. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'm not voting for you. This is really important for virtual tournaments because your mic quality is already lower than in person.

- I don't like spreading. There's a difference between speaking quickly and spreading. If you have to gasp for air in the middle of your speech, you're probably spreading. If you're speaking to quickly for me to flow, I'll raise my hand. If you keep speaking quickly, I'll say "clear." If you don't slow down after that then I'm not going to flow what you're saying. Again, speed is fine but spreading is not.

- Tech > Truth with exceptions. If your argument has clear logical fallacies, makes ridiculous leaps, is rooted in bigotry, or if it contradicts undisputed facts, I'm going to take note.

- Weigh your arguments. Please. Please. Please.

- Signpost. I need to know where you are and what you're talking about.

- I believe that public forum is supposed to be a version of debate that anyone could judge. Because of that, I will consider your persuasive ability and presentation in my RFD. If you tell me about something that I know about but you fail to adequately explain it, you'll receive lower speaks.

- If you're going to run theory/k arguments, make sure you do it exceptionally well. I'm not well-versed in theory, so if you can't explain it clearly to me I'm not going to buy it. I'm not likely to vote for a theory case unless it's incredible.

- Minute technicalities will not win you the round.

Evidence

- Do your best to cite the author's last name, their publication, and the year before reading evidence (ex: Burns of the New York Times in 2019 notes that...)

- I don't care if your card is paraphrased, so long as it isn't misconstrued.

- Please have your evidence ready to present. If your opponent calls for a card and you can't produce it, I'll dismiss the card. If that card is critical to one of your arguments, I'll also dismiss that argument.

- If your evidence is egregiously misrepresented, comes from an awful source, or is made up, I'll drop it and I'll drop your speaks. Keep doing it and I'll drop your team. I care a lot about evidence integrity.

- If you have repeated evidence issues and your opponent makes it a voting issue, I'll consider that in my RFD.

- I'll ask for cards at the end of the round if any of the following criteria are met:

1) I have reason to believe you're misrepresenting what your evidence says (ex: if your card says "the coronavirus vaccine will save people that will otherwise die if they're exposed" and you read "the coronavirus vaccine...people...will...die", you've misconstrued it)

2) The source of your card is questionable (ex: Infowars)

3) The card is disputed in round without clear resolution. (ex: grand crossfire is entirely about what one card might or might not say and neither of you can agree)

4) The card sounds too good to be true (ex: President Trump personally saved 3 million people from dying last Thursday)

5) I am asked to call for evidence by you or your opponent (ex: "Judge, call the card and see for yourself.")

Case

- If you have a specific weighing mechanism you want me to use, tell me in your framework. If you don't give me a weighing mechanism in framework, I'll weigh based on a cost/benefit analysis. If both of you present a framework, please tell me which I should use and why.

- Make sure your case is organized so I can follow it.

- Link your evidence to your impacts. If you read me a card and tell me something is going to happen, but can't explain the relationship between them, I'm not going to consider it.

- You use logic to make a jump from evidence to impact as long as your logic makes sense.

Rebuttal

- I prefer line-by-line rebuttals, but if needed I encourage a broad overview that critiques the general flaw in a contention before you go into it.

- If an argument isn't responded to in rebuttal, I'll consider it conceded. You can still outweigh it later.

- Second rebuttal should attempt to frontline.

Summary

- Defense is needed in the first summary if the other team frontlines in second rebuttal.

- Extend turns in summary

- Use summary to weigh your impacts

Final Focus

- Give me clear voter issues.

- If you can, lay out a narrative here. Clearly explain to me why your arguments are more important.

- Don't spend a ton of time hashing out small details here. I want to hear the big picture, not irrelevant turns that don't significantly strengthen your case.

Crossfire

- I don't ignore crossfire. I won't flow crossfire in the traditional sense, but I will take notes.

- If you make a strong point in crossfire (turns, concessions, strong evidence challenge, etc) I will add that to flow. But BRING IT UP AGAIN IN YOUR NEXT SPEECH.

That's basically it.

(If you got this far, tell me you read the note at the bottom of my paradigm before we start the round. I'll be impressed. And I'll give you a .1 speaker point bump)

Debated PF for Mission San Jose for 4 years (and a bit of parli), coached for a summer, and occasionally volunteer to judge. I graduated from UC Berkeley with a business degree in 2021 and now work in finance in Charlotte.

I start evaluating the round through framework/observations, you should be able to tell me what impacts are the most important and why. Anything that’s in final focus should be in summary, extend both warrants and impacts. Don't just extend author names, explain what they say again if you want me to flow the argument through.

Please weigh otherwise I have to decide what I think is important and that sounds like a lot of work I don't want to do.

Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts. If you have a question about a rfd or want more feedback or just want to get my opinion on something feel free to email me, ndubey@berkeley.edu.

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

If you do not have an off case position, I will forget your off-time roadmap. Please tell me in your speech what argument you are addressing.

Read whatever (non-offensive/egregiously untrue) argument you want; I try to be flexible.

I will not evaluate theory arguments presented in the ABCD interp violation blah blah format. If you want to explain your theory argument in the (relatively) conversational language that you present all your other arguments in, then I will listen. https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

I reserve the right to be more persuaded by a team.

I debated PF for 4 years at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland and am now going into my second year at Northwestern University.

Weighing is the easiest path to my ballot. The earlier you weigh, the better (I strongly recommend starting in rebuttal). Make sure you are being comparative and explain WHY specific weighing mechanisms apply.

If neither team weighs, I will try to default to the most well-warranted argument — but you shouldn't leave the decision of which links I buy up to me.

Some other preferences:

1) I am not a big fan of reading a bunch of disads in second rebuttal. Quality > quantity of arguments

2) Don't skimp on warrants. If you explain why what you are saying is true, it will hold a lot more weight on my flow.

3) Don’t go for your whole case. Go in-depth on one or two arguments where you’re ahead.

4) You need to extend and weigh a turn for me to vote on it (just like any other argument).

5) Defense is needed in first summary only if the other team frontlines in second rebuttal.

6) Please do not spread. I would prefer that you do not get close to spreading either.

7) I will be receptive to progressive arguments.

Please keep the debate respectful. If you cross a line, I will dock your speaks and potentially drop you.

Most importantly, have fun! I love when debaters have a genuinely good time. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out before/after the round.

about me

pronouns they/them

attending University of Kentucky

conflicts: Lincoln High School (DSM, IA)

put me on the email chain: cflaherty1287@gmail.com

experience

three years in high school public forum (midwest, mix of lay and tech)

current college public forum debater

one policy tournament + loads of current college policy prep

overview

I love judging debates, and I believe that participating in debate in high school (or college) is one of the most impactful things you can do in high school. That being said, I gave debate a large amount of effort in high school, and I generally expect that you do the same. Good debate is difficult, and difficult debate is fun. As I have experience both competing and judging in several events, I will likely be able to take any argument that you throw at me. I am unfamiliar with the current public forum topic, but as far as I can tell, it touches a lot of argumentation areas that I have covered over the course of my high school career. Don't be afraid to run complicated stuff in front of me.

As for how I will actually adjudicate your round, I am a deep tech judge and my flow will decide the round. This means that signposting and strategy are incredibly important in any round where I am your judge. If you tell me where to flow something, I'll flow it there. Make good strategic choices, and stick to them. I am a "path of least resistance" judge. I will take the path on my flow that requires me to do the least amount of intervention in order to sign my ballot. This means that your final foci should consist entirely of ballot directed language that explain how you are traveling from the left side of my page to the right side, and how that makes you win the round. Tell me exactly how to vote, and if you do it properly, my RFD should match your final focus. Do not be afraid to ask questions after the RFD - I love talking about debate just as much as I love judging it. You can also e-mail me with questions.

argument preferences

Disadvantages / Advantages: Absolutely fine with me. I am leery about them in the second rebuttal, but I haven't made up my mind on that yet so feel free to try it.

Kritiks: Go for it, but I would prefer you didn't spread.

Theory: Go for it, but I would prefer you didn't spread.

Overviews: Absolutely fine with me.

Performance: Go for it, but if your offense comes from making the opponents uncomfortable, I would prefer that you didn't simply because they probably weren't coached on the concept of performance. If your offense comes from making me uncomfortable, I can take that and I'll evaluate it fairly.

I am happy to listen to you impact your arguments out to extinction, but because this is public forum, I am also responsive to traditional LD-style underviews that argue that long link chains diminish their probability exponentially with every link. I have no bias towards either argument, I am just saying that I am receptive to both.

I am unlikely to vote on extinction outweighs structural violence simply because I have yet to encounter convincing warranting for it. If you wanna try to convince me, go for it. As an individual impacted by structural violence, I am admittedly biased towards structural violence framing. I am not biased towards structural violence warrants or impacts.

If you run a ridiculously nuanced argument that attracts yet evades common core responses for the topic, I will likely be impressed. However, I will be annoyed voting for you, because I was a second speaker and I don't find "they miss the nuance" frontlining particularly fun to flow. Still, it's an easy way to score my ballot. I am more impressed by straight up unique arguments that haven't found their way into core topic literature yet.

speaker points

Receptive to 2x30 theory, and will probably do it. Speaker points suck in public forum, where judges are more likely to be biased.

Outside of that, you'll score higher speaker points if...

- You make sound strategic decisions

- Your extemporaneous speaking becomes harder to distinguish from prepared speaking

- Your extensions are solid

- You know your stuff in cross

bottom line

Make my decision easy and it'll be an easy win for you. Whichever way you choose to make it easy is up to you.

extra stuff

I am majoring in Neuroscience, minoring in Pharmacology, and my favorite topics are healthcare topics. If you lie to me about healthcare links or impacts, I'll know it, and I'll be annoyed.

My favorite past high school public forum topics were price controls and universal basic income. I generally have a preference for domestic topics over international topics. However, seeing as this is an international topic, I'll mention that my favorite international impacts to debate were oil prices, food prices, and unique warranting for nuclear war.

For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

• It’s not an argument without a warrant.

• 'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.

• ‘Probability weighing also isn’t real

• Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.

• Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

• Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.

• Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.

• Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.

• Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.

• Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.

• If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.

• You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.

• Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
• Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

• I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.

• weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus

• It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.

• Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense

• Miscellaneous Stuff

• Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there

• Have preflows ready

• open cross is fine

• Flex prep is fine

• K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.

• I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory

• I don't care where you speak from

• I don't care what you wear

Ardrey Kell '20 | UNC Chapel Hill '24

Email: goskonda24a@ad.unc.edu

Contact me if you have any questions with the email above

***Note for online rounds: Online debates are really weird and the possibility of someone's internet cutting out or their audio lagging is really high. In order to keep the round going smoothly, I strongly suggest that you send over speech docs for each speech and disclose your cases either on the wiki or putting it on the email chain. That way even if there is a technical issue during a speech we don't have to backtrack.

General

I was the captain of the Ardrey Kell High School Public Forum team. I competed in PF for 4 years and had some decent success on circuit.

Speed wasn't an issue as a debater but judging is a whole different story, so slow down just a little bit, especially if it's a new topic. I'm fine with spreading as long as you provide speech docs (otherwise I won't flow).

Provide warrants for everything you read. Explain why something happens, instead of just claiming that it happens.

Signpost signpost signpost!

Flow stuff

-Debate is a game. I am tech>truth and will flow any argument, as long as you articulate them well and your link chains actually make sense.

-I like framework debates, but in order to win off of framework you need to extend it in every speech of the round. If no framework is given, I default cost-benefit.

-No new offensive overviews in second rebuttal. Second Rebuttal should frontline turns (you can kick out of them strategically, but don't bs). Weighing in rebuttal is lit.

-If an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true.

-Summary and final focus have to be consistent. You can re-explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round in FF. 1st FF can do a little bit extra weighing and new backlines to responses made in 2nd summary given that the first speaking team has a disadvantage in the round but no new link extensions that weren't in summary.

-My favorite protein is weigh protein (if you don't understand you're either gonna lose the round or you spend time prepping for debate so much that you don't have time to go to the gym)

-If you don't extend a link in summary, it's game over for you. Link extensions should have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. Weighing should also be extended in every speech. You can't link in with weighing if you're not winning your link.

-Extending something doesn't mean saying "extend the Smith evidence that goes conceded". Extend what the evidence says as well as the warranting/implication

-Summary doesnt have to extend conceded defense unless it's turns or TD. Turns without warranting and implications aren't turns at all so I'm not gonna evaluate them if you don't flush them out.

-2nd FF can't have any new link ins or weighing. Extend it from summary

At the end of the day, I will vote off of the most important argument in the round. If it is well-articulated and weighed, chances are you probably won it.

Progressive Argumentation

I'm going to be honest here. I understand and support the fact that progressive argumentation is key for checking back abuse of norms and create inclusivity in the debate sphere. However, I ran substance for most of my career and I am not an expert at progressive argumentation. That being said, I will evaluate theory and some basic level Ks if they are really really well explained. My threshold for evaluating progressive args is high so the simpler your arguments are, the better. I'd still much rather judge a normal substance debate, but if there is a violation that you absolutely have the need to call out, then go for it. Don't run frivolous arguments.

-CIs>reasonability

-I slightly lean to no RVIs but I'm pretty taboo about it

-No K-affs, Plans/CPs, tricks, etc (I have no idea what these are)

Miscellaneous

-I'm not going to call for cards after round unless you make an effort to indict one and I am told to call for it.

-I will be flowing the entire round except for crossfire, so if something important in cross pops up, I'm not going to consider it unless it's mentioned in speech.

-If you are racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, ableist, or show any other kind of discrimination you will be dropped automatically with the lowest speaks possible.

-You can paraphrase your cards as long as the content is what it actually says. If you do get caught lying about your cards, you will get an L with really low speaks

-Any Weeknd or Drake reference = 30 speaks

At the end of the day, whether you're on the bid round or you're riding the bubble, make sure you have fun. I get bored very easily debating or judging so make the round entertaining and light hearted. If you're funny, I'll bump your speaks and will like you but don't force it or come off as rude.

If you have any questions that I may not have answered in this paradigm, you can contact me using the info I put at the top.

Good luck!

i did 4 years of pf (2016-20)

my paradigm is essentially the same as danny's

my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of theory

I did debate pretty competitively in high school (c/o 2020) but would call myself mostly a flay and traditional judge by now. My preferences that I really want competitors to meet are as follows:

• PLEASE speak at a conversational pace and condense your arguments. I will miss a lot of things if you spread or are too complicated.
• Try to balance truth and tech - Looking back, a lot of my arguments were pretty unbelievable
• No new arguments in FF and no extending to FF if arguments are not in summary
• Boost +0.2 speaks if you l give me a piece of paper and borrow a black/blue and red pen (I’ll give the boost to everyone that offers it)
• Don’t mind paraphrasing, but have your evidence ready if your opponents ask for it
• No theory or K’s

Essentially, treat me as a parent judge that will evaluate your arguments with a bit more rigor as a past debater. Don’t forget to have fun too :)

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Background

I debated PF for 4 years at Bridgewater and was fairly successful, qualifying to the TOCs twice. I am currently a freshman at NYU Stern.

Preferences

1. You can go as fast as you want, as long as you don't spread. I can handle speed as long as it's reasonable but remember that the quality of what you say matters more than the quantity of what you say.

2. I will generally be tech > truth, but within reason. You can not get away with a blatantly false argument.

3. The second rebuttal should frontline, it doesn't have to be a 2/2 split but I want to see some interaction with the first rebuttal. I believe this makes for a better debate. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal, I will consider them dropped and evaluate them as such.

4. Please collapse in Summary and Final Focus, it makes judging much easier. Collapsing strategically will boost your speaks. Don't go for everything.

5. Please weigh, and start as early in the round as you can. In the scenario that both teams weigh, I would like some sort of metaweighing or comparative analysis between both weighing mechanisms.

6. Extend Links and explain them in Summary and Final Focus. I can not emphasize this enough. For example, you can't just tell me to extend the Jones analysis, tell me what Jones says and why it is important.

7. Make sure you terminalize your impacts in both summary and final focus, otherwise I don't know why I am voting for you.

8. I am not extremely well versed in progressive argumentation like theory and K debate, so if you choose to go this route just be aware that I might make a decision you don't agree with. I will drop you if you run frivolous theory.

Overall

Treat me as your typical flow judge, have fun, and everything should turn out all right. If you have any questions, ask before the round!

*English is my third language, my son wrote this for me*

Email chain/ questions: char.char.jackson21@gmail.com

they/them

As a topshelf thing, I will probably vote for arguments I don't understand

LD Paradigm:

arguments in order that i am comfy with them are

theory>larp>K's>tricks> phil

i can flow p much any spreading as long as its clear if i have a problem i will say something

I will vote on any argument as long as its not problematic, only if you sufficiently extend warrant, and implicate said argument.

PF Paradigm:

Send docs even in person i expect docs from all of you

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I wont do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, Kritiks, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Presumption

I presume too much, tell me why I should presume for you if you think you aren't going to win your case, if you don't make any arguments as to why I should presume I will presume based on a coin flip, aff will be heads and neg will be tails.

I also think I will be starting to vote more on risk of offense, in this scenario.

i get bored so easy please make the round interesting.

debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand

Hi, I debated for Ravenwood HS. I am a fairly standard judge but I'll outline some specific preferences:

1. Strong warrants and logical analysis > blippy unwarranted evidence

2. Love frontlining in 2nd rebuttal and it's impressive when you frontline everything (well)

3. Weighing is very important - it's the first thing I look to when making a decision so start weighing from rebuttal to FF

4. Extensions are key - not many teams do it well but you need uniqueness, warrant, and impact to be an extension

5. Collapse, or choose 1 argument to really flesh out - more arguments isn't better and it makes the round messy

6. If you want something to be flowed in FF, say it in summary - no exceptions

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS

I will absolutely not vote on ks, theory, tricks, or any other non-substance argument. If there is a real violation in the round -- not just to get a quick ballot -- make it clear in paragraph form and I will evaluate it.

Jackie Wei from Plano put it well: "Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible."

Message me if you have any questions on Facebook, good luck!

About Me

I am currently a first-year at the University of Chicago and I did compete in PF for four years so trust I know what I’m doing.

Email: sophialjansen@gmail.com

TL/DR

- I am a standard flow judge but assume I know nothing about the topic.

- tech > truth

- Second rebuttal needs to frontline all turns, respond to DAs, and respond to weighing.

- Anything in final focus should be in summary especially if you are trying to use it to win.

- Don’t be bigoted, I will not stand for it.

Basics

- I am tech > truth please don’t be ridiculous though.

- I can flow pretty quickly but if you go over 200wpm I may ask for a speech doc for clarity’s sake. Do not go so fast that the round is inaccessible to your opponents, I will drop speaks.

- I will only call for evidence if you tell me too, so please argue not only for why your evidence is good by why the warranting is good as well. I’ve ran enough cards that make absolutely no sense to need to see warranting along with the cards you read.

- Please please please weigh, if you don’t I will assume the other teams weighing or have to make up my own and I’m sure you don’t want that. Alongside that please tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than your opponents don’t just assume I will vote by yours. Don’t concede your opponent’s weighing otherwise it will flow through.

- As for extensions, it is pretty likely that I will miss card names in my flow so don’t just say “extend author X” because I will not know what you are trying to extend. Uniqueness, link, warrant, impact, and important cards need to be extended through the round if you want me to count your argument. Final focuses need to be more on big picture rather than extension, but there still needs to be a clear argument to vote for extended through to the final speech.

Speeches

- THESE ARE JUST MY PREFERENCES. Read them and try to follow them but everyone has their own style of debate, if it works for you, use it.

- First rebuttal is the only speech I will accept not having case extensions in.

- Second rebuttal needs to respond to all weighing, DA’s, and frontline all turns otherwise I will consider them dropped. As a principle, I do not like new offense in second rebuttal but I will still flow it, that being said I will accept much weaker responses to new offense than I would otherwise.

- First summary must extend all turns, weighing, and offense that they want to use later in the round. You will also need to respond to the frontlined defense you want to use later. As for responses to second rebuttal I need responses to turns, weighing, and new offense. I will accept blippy responses to defense as long as it is warranted and/or carded. I know this is a lot for first summary so please collapse, it will make all our lives easier.

- Second summary, this is where you need to collapse the round if it hasn’t been done already. I will lower speaks all around if everyone’s full case is being extended into final focus. Extend anything you want in final focus from both sides of the flow and please weigh.

- Both final focuses, everyone has their own style here, do whatever you want but make sure that I have a proper argument to vote for left after you are done. Tell me why to vote for you and tell me why not to vote for your opponent.

Content Warnings/Trigger Warnings

- Debate is meant to be a safe space, do not make it otherwise.

- As a principle, if your team runs any case or argument that engages with potentially graphic details or triggering content without a content waring I will drop speaker points significantly and it may cost you the round.

- If you read arguments relating to suicide or sexual assault without a content/trigger warning I will automatically drop you and give lowest speaker points possible.

K’s/Theory

- I have little to no experience running these types of arguments so don’t assume I will know any proper terminology or ways of handling them.

- I will evaluate them just as I would a traditional argument, thus I will also accept line-by-line responses.

- That being said I would much rather judge a topic round rather than a theory one so please keep that in mind.

Evidence Ethics

- Cut your cards properly; broken hyperlinks, screenshots, sketchily cut cards will most likely make you lose speaks and may mean the evidence is dropped.

- Intentionally misconstrued evidence is not acceptable and may cost you the round.

- Evidence should not take long to pull up, please send all called for cards to the email chain in a timely manner.

- I ran enough sketchy cards to know what one looks like, don’t make this awkward and make me call you out on it.

Speaker Points

- I am pretty generous with speaker points.

- Be nice and respectful and you should be good.

- Obviously, the better you are at making good arguments, responses, round choices, and making the judging easy for me you will get higher points.

- I only evaluate content in this round for speaks, nothing about race, sex, clothing, etc. so just be respectful.

- Do not waste any of our time reading 30 speaks theory arguments, I won’t evaluate them.

Extra Stuff

- Assume I know nothing about the topic because I do not. I will be able to pick up on it pretty quickly but err on the side of caution.

- Pre-flowing needs to be done before the round.

- Off-time road maps are nice but not required.

- Don’t go over time. I will not flow more than 3-5 seconds over.

- In the case that no offense is generated I presume 1st speaking team.

DO NOT BE BIGOTED. I WILL DROP YOU AND STOP THE ROUND. This includes any kind of racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, etc. either directed to me, your opponents, or ran in the debate.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me ahead of the round or ask me before we begin.

I did PF for Brophy for 4 years.

Feel free to let me know if there’s anything i can do to make the round more comfortable and safe. (egk32@georgetown.edu or FB message me)

Quick notes:

1. If you are the second speaking team and want to extend an argument, you have to frontline all responses on that argument in second rebuttal + if you don’t respond to turns on any argument, they are conceded.

2. Make sure every arg you're reading has warrants AND extend them pls

Weighing: Just make sure its comparative between args + it starts early (second rebuttal, first summary)

Sidenote: Most times, grandcross is really useless so if both teams agree to skip it for like a minute of prep instead, I'm cool with that

A couple things:

- I can't flow spreading, so please don't :'(

- I'm not good with theory, but I'll try my best

- You don't need to disclose, but I'll buy any theory arguments about it being good

- You can paraphrase if you want, but I'll buy any theory arguments about it being bad

- No offensive overviews in rebuttal

- Second rebuttal should probably frontline

- Anything in FF needs to be in Summary

- Weighing in FF also needs to be in Summary considering that it's three minutes

- If I can't vote on anything, I'll default to the first speaking team.

Otherwise, have fun with the round!

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

hi! im azraf i debated for whitman for 4 years.

as a judge, i care the most about warrant extensions. please extend why the resolution leads to your impact in both the summary and final focus. my ballot is determined by this in every round i judge and is the thing i say the most in my rfd.

important stuff

1) be nice. please be nice. i am way more likely to want to vote for you if you are almost absurdly nice. obviously anything blatantly offensive will mean u get dropped. being mean or dismissive to your opponents will make me not want to vote for you sorry.

2) you can and should wear whatever you want and makes you feel the most comfortable to debate. crocs! sweatshirts! flats! sneakers! ive debated so i know how generally stressful it is and i dont want to add to ur stress or discomfort in any way! similarly, if you would prefer to sit/stand, just do it!

3) debate the way you want to debate! have some fun. i generally think the best rounds are when you are debating in the most you way possible regardless of paradigm.

4) i do not care about perceptual dominance and we all shouldnt either

round stuff

1. if offense isn't extended (warrant and all) in summary AND ff, its not in my ballot. that means full scale warrant extensions. links with no impacts > impacts with no links. please please please extend your solvency too!!!!!!!

2. i'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best.

3. please, please frontline. you HAVE to respond to your opponents rebuttal/case/arguments in general. if u dont do that you aren't debating, you're just saying things fast

email is azrafkkhan@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals

Berkeley elims update: elim rounds are open to the public, if you try to ask people to not watch the round I will be incredibly displeased.

About Me

Kyle (he/they), did circuit PF (and some policy and extemp on the state level) and coached for Fairmont. Studied math education at Cal, and didn't debate in college. Please use my first name and don't call me "judge", I promise I'm not much older than you.

I've judged rather infrequently over the past three years - I still keep a very good flow by PF standards (can still get cites for every card), but keep in mind my rust and don't speak too quickly. I can deal with cards being spread IF you are slow on tags and cites AND your cards are long enough that you're not spreading 12 words and going back to slow. I won't flow off a speech doc.

Email me at kylek@berkeley.edu if you have any questions or to add me to email chains.

You can make warrants in round about why I should change any the beliefs listed below unless you are advocating for exclusionary behavior or academic dishonesty.

General

Tabula rasa is a myth; the best a judge can do is explain the ways in which they are not tab before the round. So read this.

The best way to win in front of me is to win one piece of offense, properly extend it in each speech, and convince me it's the most important thing through weighing. I strongly prefer you going very in depth on one argument than trying to win every argument and undercovering everything.

Every claim you make should be warranted, and the team who does better comparative warrant analysis will almost always win. Empirics/evidence without warrants mean almost nothing to me.

Tech > truth but you'll find true arguments are very easy to warrant. Read above. You can (and maybe should) warrant to me why I should be truth > tech on theory or structural violence arguments.

Rebuttal

Neither side can read new independent offense in rebuttal (theory arguments where the violation occurred in the previous speech is an exception). Weighing and turns are obviously fine, but reading a new contention as an "overview" is not cool.

If you only read one section from this paradigm, make it this one: if you are the second speaking team, you need to respond to everything from the first rebuttal related to the arguments that you intend to go for in summary and final focus. If you want to go for a contention in your case, you better cleanly frontline at least one link and impact. Anything said in the first rebuttal that isn't addressed in the second is considered dropped.

Summary/Final Focus

Go for one thing and go for it hard. I love early collapse strategies (as early as the rebuttal speeches). Go for one of the six links into your case, go for a turn, concede defense against your own case to kick out of a turn, make smart decisions and be creative.

Three minute summaries are one minute too long. There's no excuse to not cleanly extend everything you want to go for. This means frontlining, and properly extending warrants and impacts. I need a full link chain extended to grant you offense on an argument.

Do meta weighing - why is your impact that wins on magnitude more important than your opponents' impact that wins on probability? Don't just use buzzwords. And saying "we read link defense, therefore we outweigh because their impact is nonexistent" is NOT WEIGHING. Assume both arguments are true and show why yours is better.

If it's not in summary, it better not be in final focus. This applies to both offense and defense. I have no tolerance for debaters who disrespect their partners, and one of the most common ways it appears in-round is when a second speaker's final focus is nothing like their partner's summary. Your speaker points will suffer greatly if this happens.

"Progressive" Arguments

Theory should be used to set norms and check against abuse. I'm not the person to read frivolous theory in front of.

Here are some of my general beliefs on theory arguments, but keep in mind that I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote against these beliefs. You should disclose and I'll vote for disclosure theory. I'm ambivalent on specific disclosure interps (ex: round reports), but please understand the inherent differences between PF and policy before you read these arguments. I don't have any predisposed leanings on paraphrasing, but misconstruction of evidence is academic dishonesty and will be treated as such. Even if you paraphrase you should have all your cut cards in one document and evidence exchanges should take less than a minute.

On RVIs: you shouldn't win just for following the rules, but you should also be able to argue that theory trades off with topic education and therefore is a voter. I've been told some folks disagree on whether that means I default yes or no RVIs, but that is my baseline stance. Again, I will not hack for/against any of these arguments, but I want to list my general dispositions here for full transparency's sake. Ask me before round if you have any questions.

I will vote for your K or policy argument with non-utilitarian kritikal framing. If you're reading the former, keep in mind I'm not super familiar with the literature so warrant and explain well. K vs. FW debates are among my favorite to watch and evaluate. Both teams in a K round should warrant why I should prefer their model of debate (i.e. have a good ROTB argument). I generally believe K's should have some link to the topic.

Things I would be a very good judge for: LARP vs. LARP, disclosure, K vs. FW, LARP with K framing

Things I would be a pretty good judge for: LARP vs. K, other theory, K vs. K

Things I would be a very bad judge for: non-topical K, frivolous theory, tricks (really any argument that doesn't have a claim, warrant, and impact at bare minimum)

Respect your opponents and your partner. Have fun.

I debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years.

Update for Harvard Tournament: i am old now. please do not speak fast because i truly will not be able to follow it. please disregard everything below. a slow, logical, and captivating speech delivery will surely convince me.

Speech-docs & questions about the decision should be emailed to: jeremylee@college.harvard.edu.

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning. Give a phone number for participants to anonymously report any concerns, and if there are any, you must have an alternative case ready to read.

TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge. I will evaluate rounds with a technical standard, but I dislike fast, blippy "tech" debate. As tech as I try to be, your persuasive ability will inevitably skew me one way or another, so please don't throw away presentational skills for the sake of spewing jargon. Every argument needs a clearly-explained warrant for me to consider it. I will vote for the team with the least mitigated link to the greatest impact.

Technicalities

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. Use it for your own benefit to clarify arguments.

- First summary doesn't need defense.

- I care little about numbers and number comparisons in weighing. Most of the time, impact quantifications in PF are over exaggerated because impacts that happen on margins are extremely difficult if not impossible to quantify.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't, I won't know whether to evaluate your response or your opponents' case first. This means I can still vote for a team with a dropped turn on their flow.)

- Compare your weighing to your opponents. If this is not done, know that I weigh primarily on the link level because I think it is the key factor in determining the marginality of your impact (or if it happens at all). If you don’t want an unexpected decision, do the weighing yourself. Side-note: Link ins don’t count as weighing unless you show that your link is stronger than theirs.

- It is my belief that weighing fundamentally comes down to two things: how large your impact is and how probable your impact is. I take both things into account so if you weigh on probability and your opponent weighs on magnitude (and you both don't interact with each other's weighing), I will intervene to determine which argument is more important.

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- Paragraph theory is good with me and is probably more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.]

- No CPs or Ks.

- Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- No offensive OVs in second rebuttal. I just won't vote on it

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. You need to always link the argument back to the resolution and draw it out to an impact. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a clear extension because it is essential for transparent collapsing.

- Please don't use the abusive strategy of kicking out of all of your opponent's responses to your case just to read a new link to your impact. If your opponents do this, call them out for it in speech.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round.

Etiquette (how to get high speaks)

- Don't spread. I flow on my computer, so I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is bad for the activity. It excludes so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, speaking over your opponent in cross, and making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Evidence

- Please don't call for every piece of evidence your opponents read. I understand if you think the card is super important to win the round, but in 99% of rounds, I do not even consider evidence in my decision. I instead look at logic and argument quality, so call for evidence sparingly.

- I think evidence is overrated and warrants matter much more. This means you need to attach warrants to evidence and also should discourage the misconstruction of evidence. Your insane card won't win you the round. Read your evidence ethically and then explain its role in the round.

(Guide) Warranted analytics + evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > assertions.

- At the minimum, last name and year

- I am fairly lenient with paraphrased cards because I understand that when all evidence is taken word for word from the source, word economy suffers and many debaters resort to speaking faster. However, this is on the condition that evidence is NOT misconstrued. If you are to paraphrase evidence, make sure to fully understand the source and maintain the source's intention; do NOT paraphrase evidence for the sake of getting it to say what you want it to say.

- I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round.

- To discourage cheating, if you blatantly misrepresent evidence, I will drop the entire arg/contention.

Misc.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Feel free to ask questions about the decision after the round. I won't feel offended if you disagree with my decision, and I am happy to discuss it after the round.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round.

About me:

I did PF from 2013 to 2017 at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I coached/ judged frequently as a first year out, although I've been semi-retired from high school debate since 2018. Currently, I'm a student at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, where I'm majoring in economics and history. I regularly compete in APDA and BP style parliamentary debate. I use he/ they pronouns.

Major preferences:

Unless you want me to intervene, you have to weigh competing impacts as well as links into the same impact. Weighing should be comparative (X outweighs Y because) or superlative (X comes before everything else because). Comparative weighing tends to be more persuasive than superlative because it actually accounts for the quality of your opponents' arguments instead of precluding them on face. That being said, I'll vote for any weighing as long as it's done correctly.

I touched at this in the last paragraph, but to reiterate: you must weigh your link(s) against your opponents' link(s) when you're both trying to access the same impact. In all the rounds I've judged, failure to weigh links is easily the most common mistake that costs debaters the round. (This is especially true for higher-level rounds.)

Don't wait until second final focus to weigh, doing so deliberately avoids clash and makes it nearly impossible for the first speaking team to win on weighing. I will reluctantly evaluate new weighing in second final focus if it's the only substantive weighing in the round, or if it's the only way to resolve clash over existing weighing.

As you may have noticed, the past three paragraphs have all been about weighing. That's because weighing is important. A lot of successful debaters have a habit of telling teams they judges to "weigh more" or "weigh better" without explaining how, and I despise this. If you want to improve your weighing but you're not sure how, find me after the round and we can talk.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to address defense, but they must cover offense and/or theory arguments introduced by the first rebuttal. Weighing from first rebuttal should probably be addressed, but I'm fine with you waiting until summary. Dropped defense must be present in final focus for me to evaluate it, but I don't need it in first summary (first summary still needs to extend/ rebuild defense if it was responded to in second rebuttal, otherwise I won't buy them in final focus.)

Offensive overviews, new "advantages" or "disads", and "turns" that are really just blippy new arguments with the same terminal impact as your opponents are fair game in first rebuttal, but not in second. Actual turns on their arguments are fine in second rebuttal.

As long as they're properly warranted, I usually don't care if arguments are carded. (Arguments predicated on empirical/ fact claims are the exception to this.) Evidence comparison is not as compelling as argument comparison, but I'll vote on it if you tell me to. In rounds where teams should have compared warrants but didn't, I often intervene on evidence. Your opponents get free prep time while you're searching for evidence; this is a good norm because it encourages teams to have evidence readily available

Theory is fine in the case of egregious abuse by your opponents. If you read theory and I think it's frivolous, I probably won't drop you but I will tank your speaks. I default to reasonability because this is PF and your opponents probably don't know what a counterinterp is. Theory must be introduced immediately after the violation has occurred if you want me to evaluate it. Cross (or questioning during prep) checks. Feel free to ask me how I feel about specific theory arguments before the round.

Plans and CPs are fine as long as the resolution actually proposes an action. You don't need to prove your advocacy is probable unless your opponents make an argument saying otherwise. If you read a specific plan/ CP that's very unpredictable and probably abusive, I'll heavily err towards your opponents if they contest it. (So don't be afraid to call your opponents out!)

Kritikal arguments are fine if you actually know how to make/ implicate them. I'm probably most conducive to cap, security, or orientalism (especially on the BRI topic). Read dense continental philosophy or postmodern arguments at your own risk.

Try not to speak above 215 words per minute. My upper limit is probably around 230 WPM, so go fast at your own risk.

Don't be mean. Stop making dramatic faces at your opponents' arguments, they're not going to persuade me. Avoid repeatedly cutting your opponents off in crossfire. Don't be blatantly dismissive or hostile towards your opponents' arguments when you respond to them (this is mostly directed at you, male debaters with non-male opponents).

Minor preferences (there aren't round-deciding, but please show some competency and do what I say):

Flip for sides and preflow as early as you can. (This especially goes for you, second flight.)

Please don't give me a full-on roadmap unless you're doing something really unusual. (I've judged enough rounds to know that you're going down their case and back to your own if time permits.)

Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

I don't care if you sit or stand, so please don't ask me.

I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, so please don't ask me.

i am lay judge

Hi!!

This is a work in progress so ask questions if you have any before rounds.

History:

I did PF for four years at Palo Verde in Las Vegas, and go to University of Virginia rn. I didn’t really do debate that seriously until senior year where I was pretty competitive on the national circuit (breaking, speaker awards, bids, etc.) I won State in Nevada in 2019 and won District Student of the Year too which was chill. I went to Nats and broke there after I graduated, also. I’ve both attended and worked at camp, so I’m familiar with both lay and tech debate, and I know about BRI.

Judging Style:

• Tech over truth ***to an extent.
• Do NOT try to impact turn things like racism, sexism, etc. As long as your arguments aren’t offensive, if you have the ev to support them, you’re chillin.
• I will get super pissed and prob will be way less likely to buy arguments if your delivery is overly condescending or degrading toward your opponents. As a good friend puts it, I love hearing a “tastefully savage remark,” but that does not mean I like teams that are rude. It’s pretty clear when a team is crossing the line and being outright mean to their opponents. You do you at the end of the day, but seriously, not a good look. (No matter how smart you are, if you act like a jerk in round your speaks are gonna reflect it).
• Theory: TBH I debated a lot in high school and never ran/hit theory. It’s becoming way more prevalent in PF but like don’t expect me to follow all policy rules on judging it to a t. Theory shells should be responded to just like any other argument, and I will vote on them if the violation is clear. Don’t just use theory on a small team that clearly has no idea what theory is because they won’t be able to respond. Again, not a good look.
• Speaks: These are super subjective and sometimes suck butttt I typically give speaks that range from a 28-30. You’re fine. Take a deep breath. If you do your job you’ll get good speaks.
• Framework: I will vote on it. I default util like most pf judges but if you give me any other framework it needs to be warranted and it needs to be extended. I will evaluate the round as you tell me, thus, you MUST respond to framework if you disagree and tell me why. Not just, “They say evaluate on this. We say evaluate on this.”
• Speed: Don’t legit spread but I’m cool with fast debate talking. Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed and you’re good.

Things to do:

• Collapse. Collapse. Collapse.
• WEIGH. Don’t just tell me why your argument rocks, tell me why it rocks more than your opponents. If neither team does this I’m forced to intervene which is where 95% of circuit “judge screws” happen. Comparative weighing is beautiful. Do it.
• Extend ALL arguments in sum that you’re gonna go for in final focus.

Things not to do:

• Extend through ink.
• Give speeches in cross. I might zone out anyway, so there’s not really a reason for you to be so aggressive. Take time and clarify for your team and try to get some concessions. (Bring these up in speeches)!!
• Oh on that not if you’re gonna ask me to vote on something that was in cross it needs to be in the speech immediately following that cross or I won’t vote on it.

Debate is a weird game we play so have fun!! Make jokes!! We’re all gonna learn from this round regardless of the results so do your best and don’t be so mf bitter. Good luck!

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

I debated PF for Poly Prep (Graduated in 2021) and was relatively successful on the national circuit. Was a pretty typical tech debater (back in like...2020) and am a pretty typical tech/tab judge. If you extend each part of an argument through every speech, warrant throughout the round, and prove to me that you outweigh your opponent, you will win. Please add me to the email chain: abigail@reichmeyer.com

*NOVICES: Extensions are absolutely paramount to me. If you are going to do anything at all in summary and final focus, extend and warrant every part of the argument you are going for.

Some preferences:

1. Please collapse, preferably on one link and one impact. Write my ballot for me in final focus. Start weighing early and spend time on it.
2. You must frontline at least the argument you are going for in second rebuttal; no new responses in second summary to arguments made in first rebuttal. Not worth it to try going new in the two because I will know and not flow it
3. You should cut cards and not paraphrase in case. I’m unlikely to look at/call for evidence unless I am told to, but I am going to scrutinize your evidence more if you paraphrase. Really low threshold for misrepresenting evidence at this point
4. I don’t mind an intense round, but please don’t be a jerk we will all be uncomfortable
5. I have a lot of thoughts about progressive argumentation in PF but TLDR is I am comfortable evaluating in a technical sense but you should 1) really know what you are doing and 2) it often puts me in a position where I have to intervene, because I don’t think it is ethical to give you a W for making arguments that are not the norm in PF in a round where your opponents are out of their depth. Thus, I have to decide my threshold for responses in a way I don’t in typical case debates which is necessarily interventionist
6. I will do absolutely everything short of intervening to avoid presuming, but I presume whatever side is the squo (usually neg)
7. I will probably not write a super detailed RFD but I will give you a comprehensive oral one, so feel free to record that.

Cliche, but have fun. My biggest regret after debate went online my junior year was not savoring the time I had at in person tournaments. Remember that this is supposed to be enjoyable!

I am your average flow judge. Please be clear and speak at a reasonable pace. I think it's a good idea to focus on reading and explaining a few arguments instead of dumping a lot of unwarranted arguments. If you make a JJBA reference I might bump up your speaks a bit :)

I did pf in high school (graduated from flower mound in 2020 & a freshman in college right now), pf wise I'm tech over truth and you can run whatever as long as it's not like something no one would be able to respond to. I vote off the flow and speed is fine, just be clear. cards are important, don't misconstrue but analytics are def also valid. preferably extend everything through every speech including summary, but up to you. if you want more detail on pf look at Nikhil Guddati's paradigm, for how I do speaks/topicality/K's/theory. also, be nice (v important)! on the off chance you're reading this for extemp, I did that in hs too and I'm content > delivery and I know everyone messes up but I'll know if you're just lying lol.

He/Him

oliverhniu@gmail.com

Update for Ridge 2022:

I competed in Public Forum for four years at Millard North HS, graduated in 2019, and coached at NDF/VBI/on the circuit pre-Covid. I’m basically retired now and Ridge will be my first time judging in about two years. Therefore, assume I have very limited topic knowledge and am unfamiliar with any recent norms.

Here's a few preferences:

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I won't do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Ks. I will caution that these arguments were not super common when I competed so please be thorough in your explanations and make your path to the ballot clear. If I don't understand your argument well, I will default against it.

Evidence Challenges:

Unless the tournament says otherwise, in the event of a dispute about evidence, I will pause the round and ask the accusing team if they wish to stake the round on their claim. I will then determine if there was a violation of evidence ethics and vote accordingly.

debated for a fat bit in hs

i will flow

be nice

extend links and impacts

speed threshold ~200 wpm if more then send a doc

frontline in second rebuttal

read content warnings

please weigh - that includes links and impacts

Don't be racist, transphobic, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or exclusive in any way please or we will not b having a good time and i will drop u

ask me for any specifics

also gabe rusk's paradigm is v good use that one

or kyle kishimoto's that one's also v good

Btw: some of this paradigm is just like mac hays so thx mac: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=131918

Hey y’all! I'm Rylen Patel! I am a junior at Fairmont Prep, heading into my 3rd year of Public Forum debate.

**BR Specific: If y'all wear formal dress during the round and show it to me I will give you auto 30's

Be respectful! If you are super aggressive or rude, the debate becomes less fun for everyone involved. Being firm in crossfire is fine, but the more actively respectful you are, the higher I'll bump your speaks. Also, I’ll either be sending streaks or messaging my friends during cross so don’t expect me to pay attention if something important happens in cross let me know in speech.

You can consider me a flow judge in that I will flow the debate and consider myself a somewhat "technical" debater, but don't overestimate my proficiency. If I don't understand an argument on my flow, I will be much much less likely to vote on it, even if it is super "clean".

IF YOU CASE HAS ANYTHING NEEDING A TRIGGER WARNING PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ A TRIGGER WARNING (that was in all caps for a rzn)

If you're going to spread, well then first ask your opponent’s then send me a speech doc (rpatel693@students.fairmontschools.com). If you're going to go speedy, do so with caution: Don't spread on debaters who are significantly less experienced or otherwise unprepared for speed (I WILL GIVE YOU AUTO 25’S IF THIS HAPPENS). Sending a speech doc is not an excuse to sacrifice clarity - I'll still be listening and if I can't understand you or if you're leaving your opponents in the dust without sending them a speech doc, I will stop flowing.

I believe warrants are the most important part of the debate. PF is supposed to be about logic and reasoning. PLZ WEIGH. I don’t know how to express it enough just plz do it, if you don’t then you’ll want me to weigh and sometimes I am an idiot and then I may make the wrong decision (however you can solve it by weighing). Also, just don’t say we outweigh on scope give me an actual comparative analysis.

2nd rebuttal should frontline case, anything that goes dropped when frontlining can be extended in the 1st summary cleanly. I guess you can respond in 2nd summary, but if frontlining is brand new in 2nd summary theres a problem. Any offense extended across two speeches without a response is clean and I won't evaluate substantive responses on it afterwards (though you can probably get away with marginal defensive claims like 'they have no brightline' or 'they never tell you how much of their impact they access', etc. and defense disguised as weighing, just not like a new delink or turn or anything).

Sticky Defense: Any defense from first rebuttal is generally sticky, with a few important caveats. For it to be in FF, first summary must extend any defense frontlined by 2nd rebuttal, and any TERMINAL defense you're going for. In order for any defense to be terminal, it must be extended in every speech - that means terminal defense from first rebuttal that is dropped in summary and picked up in FF will still be evaluated in the decision, but will lose its terminal value - so I will still grant the argument in question some marginal offense.

No judge is truly tabula rasa, but I'll do my best to avoid any intervention.

Ngl, I'm not super experienced with theory (unless its formal dress theory or disclouser then I am all ears), and I don't love it as part of debate so unless you're really good at explaining it or it goes cold conceded in the round I'm unlikely to vote on it. Same goes for Ks. (to summerize if you read a K I probably won't understand it and then will get dropped), strike me if that's an issue

Paraphrasing is fine but I will drop speaks if you are found to be miscutting it or aggressively power-tagging it. When calling for cards, please find them quick. I'm pretty lenient and won't cut speaks for extra time spent finding a card unless it takes more than a couple of minutes, but in general it's a good idea to have your cards (either in cut card form or PDF) easily accessible and ready to go in case they are called.

Unless it is SUPER sketchy or too-good-to-be-true, I won't call for cards of my own volition. I will, however, call for any cards that I am told to call for at any point in the round, unless it becomes entirely irrelevant for the decision - ie. the argument is dropped, etc.

I will always default first speaking team due to structural disadvantage

Speaker Point Specific:

· I will automatically drop you with the lowest possible speaks if you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory in the round

· Spreading on novice opponents is a pretty messed up move and expect double 25’s

· I’ll start from 28 – 28.5 but dw I’ll give high speaker points unless you mess up badly

· If you read a lyric from NAV you get + 0.5 points. If you read a lyric or a song title by NAV as your contention name +1 pt per contention

o Yes I am a nav fan

Update: If I can't hear you due to connection issues because connecting cross country is going to inevitably have some issues, I will request a speech doc. If there is an issue with you sending me a speech doc (meaning you dont want too) either strike me or i will just count whatever i have on my flow and if your connection is really choppy that may be really bad, so just send me a speech doc if I request it :)

I debated for three years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts.

General Stuff:

• I am fine with most speeds. However, I definitely prefer the round to go at a moderate pace and I will not tolerate spreading.

• I like to think that I am tech>truth. That said, there is an inherent tradeoff with my threshold for responses on ridiculous arguments.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I do not think progressive arguments (Theory, K, Breaking Speech Times/Meta, etc.) belong in PF so I will not judge those types of rounds. On the other hand, if there is some outrageous violation, warrant the issues in a speech and I will probably give some credence to it if it is true. Just don't read like a full-blown shell on me.

• I default Neg but am willing to hear warranted arguments about why I should presume the first speaking team.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make some heinous decisions.

• I also believe that weighing comes in tiers: you need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.

• I also love teams who use impact clarity well! Use it correctly, I often see this "weighing" mechanism done poorly.

Things I Do Not Like:

• I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments but I will have a super low threshold for responses and your speaks will likely reflect this.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Preface/TLDR: I haven't judged a whole ton since I debated in 2020 but I'm a general "flow judge." PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont go fast, just collapse well and engage with responses, clash is good! TBH: treat me like a lay judge, use the lay case yall got prepared please

email: anuraagroutray@utexas.edu

Experience: I debated in HS in PF as the R of Cinco ranch RT. I did pf from 2016-2020 in a ton of locals and on the national circuit, and was successful, so maybe that helps you get an idea of my experience. Specific things that might be relevant that I stole from someone else's paradigm:

1) I think I'm tech over truth. if something is false I think it's pretty easy to just warrant that with your own words in an analytic or ev, but you need to say it and i'll accept that as defense.

2) If you go fast I probably won't catch it, sorry I'm not good w speed ???? please signpost hella. excellent signposting will always get a 30 from me

3) I never ran progressive arguments so your mileage may vary, and my limited knowledge of progressive stuff has all disappeared so if you choose to run these arguments I guess just explain it well? I'm really unsure of how to evaluate these arguments to be honest so probably best to just avoid them.

4) My advice: please, please, please don't go for everything just to flex; collapse and spend time weighing.

7) summary and final focus need to be cohesive; i'm not voting on stuff that was new in ff unless ig its weighing in first ff

8) don't be annoying in cross; there's a clear line between being aggressive and being mean and if you cross that line your speaks will reflect that. make cross productive

9) i won't really feel the need to call for evidence unless its absolutely necessary or you tell me to call for it

10) don't hide behind evidence; if someone reads an analytical response that has a logical warrant behind it, it isn't enough to tell me to prefer you because you have some random author on your side, engage with your opponents

11) If neither side has any semblance of offense or risk of offense at the end of the round, i presume first speaker.

12) if you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc = L + bad speaks imo. it should go without saying to just not be a bad person.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me @ anuraagroutray@utexas.edu

Updated for April 2023.

Tabroom has the option to specify pronouns for a reason. If a debater specifies certain pronouns by which they identify in a live update, ensure you know them. I have ZERO tolerance for deliberate misgendering because it makes the round unsafe. If you object to this, strike me.

A note on content warnings: I have seen the proliferation of potentially triggering arguments being tagged with content warnings before rounds. This is great. If someone doesn't read such a warning, I would be extremely receptive to claims about why that should mean I drop the debater immediately. However, I notice the execution of such warnings leaves much to be desired in some cases. A CW should have three components:

A. A clear indication of the general topic which will be discussed and whether it is graphic or not.

B. A google form wherein the competitors and judges in the round can anonymously indicate discomfort. Do not ask for someone to say whether the content is triggering or not aloud, it is extremely traumatizing and difficult for survivors of trauma to have to out themselves for the sake of your debate argument. Asking for this is immoral and at best will be met by me tanking your speaks and at worst lead to me dropping you immediately.

C. If someone does indicate discomfort, simply say you understand and will read a different argument. Do not pressure or guilt trip anyone for being unwilling to discuss these arguments. Regardless of how important these issues are to debate discourse, safety is definitely more important.

Put me on the email chain: rubinmai@gmail.com.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible, feel free to email me before the round and I will do my best.

TL;DR: Tech>truth, first speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense unless it's frontlined by second speaking rebuttal, in which case you have to respond to frontlines if you wanna go for it in FF. Second rebuttal does not have to frontline defense, but does have to frontline turns or disads. Defense isn't terminal unless you tell me why. I've been scarcely involved in debate for a few years and am rusty, adapt accordingly. Don't be more tech than you are. See point 5 if you're reading an anticapitalist argument.

Hello. I did PF for three years at Boca Raton High School ('17) and currently coach/judge circuit PF. I went to FSU until spring 2021 and am currently a third year law student at ASU. I’ve been around the national circuit, so I’ve seen my fair share of debating.

I have been much less involved in debate since 2021, however. Take all of the components of this paradigm with the caveat that I might have issues keeping up with overwhelmingly tech rounds due to being rusty.

I disclose, so if you have any questions about the round, be it the specifics of the flow or your performance as a speaker, feel free to ask me either during the disclosure or after the round if time permits on my part. If you have any questions about my paradigm or an RFD, feel free to ask before or after round (tournament permitting).

As for the paradigm:

1. Debate is a game (unless you compellingly argue otherwise in-round), call me tech>truth. I'll vote on any warranted argument insofar as it isn't unambiguously, maliciously offensive. In the latter case, you'll get an L0-20. I think intervention assassinates pedagogy and fairness because the round is decided by factors outside the control of debaters. To minimize intervention, I will presume the status quo in a scenario in a policy topic where: A. no one is accessing offense, or B. both teams are accessing offense without literally any analysis as to which args are more important and it is impossible for me to resolve the debate without intervening. In short, I presume in pretty much any scenario where it is impossible for me to resolve the round without having to introduce any of my own analysis that wasn’t in it. DO NOT ABUSE THAT. I presume first on non-policy resolutions. On that note, I believe defense is NOT terminal unless you tell me it is and why. I presume defense is mitigatory by default, and give very little weight to it if it is not implicated. This ensures people don't lose the round on presumption because of one piece of mitigation that was dropped and lacked implication.

2. First speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense, unless that defense is covered in second rebuttal, in which case, it must be frontlined in first summary and extended if you intend to go for it in FF. Likewise, if you're second speaking and frontline in second rebuttal and your opponents drop the frontline in first summary, you can extend the frontline straight to final focus without mentioning it in summary. I do not require second rebuttal frontlining for defense, but it is required for turns. However, it is probably strategic to do because defense is a lot harder to access if frontlined early. Beyond that, no new in the two. That includes new weighing in the 2FF, unless there was no prior weighing. Any argument must be responded to in the speech after it is introduced or else it is conceded, with the exception of first rebuttal defense that is not frontlined in second rebuttal. However, I do believe.

3. Regarding new applications of certain args, the way I handle them is that the part of the arg itself that was read before cannot be responded to if dropped. However, the new application can be responded to because it was never read before in the round and the other team had no way of knowing they needed to frontline. Too many teams keep pulling this super sus strat of reading entirely new applications of frontlines or defense to dropped args in the backhalf and reading entirely new implications that weren't in rebuttal. This is effectively a new argument because this articulation of the argument wasn't earlier in the round and the other team couldn't respond to it. There are two exceptions. Those are if 1FF is answering new arguments from second summary and/or if 2FF is refuting those answers. Second, if you're making a theoretical argument about some abuse committed late in the round. If it's the latter, you better spend a VERY significant chunk of your FF on the argument and warranting why the level of abuse is big enough to outweigh the fairness skew of an arg that is new in the two.

4. The only new frameworks that I feel comfortable with being introduced after summary, absent some argument telling me otherwise, are voters and reasons to prefer/weighing frameworks. Clarity of link weighing is fake news 99% of the time, I am not fooled by new attempts to read defense in FF.

5. Cool w/ progressive arguments if done properly and am tangentially familiar with stock K lit. I notice a lot of judges try to ascribe specific purposes to these types of args, like only being for checking back abuse. I think this is intervention. YOU decide and argue in round what the role of a progressive arg is and how that affects the round's outcome. Also, tell me why your args/standards are voters, especially for theory/T. Disclaimer: I have a college policy background, but a limited one, and I was also bad at it. If you're someone reading these types of args, I suggest dumbing them down by spending more time explaining/implicating them.

(NEW AS OF APRIL 2023) As an addition to the above, I have become more versed in anticapitalist literature since taking some distance from debate. With this, I have also grown disillusioned with how a lot of PFers read arguments based on that literature such as capitalism kritiks. Saying I should reject something solely because "it perpetuates capitalism" is oftentimes meaningless in the greater scheme of things within anticapitalist theory. That's not to say I won't vote on those args, because I will if they are accessed and weighed. But it is to say that I have an unavoidable internal bias against that variant of anticapitalist argumentation. However, I love capitalism arguments in PF when they're accompanied by rock solid uniqueness (i.e. reasons why capitalism is gonna collapse and the aff prevents/delays that, or reasons why the aff causes capitalism to collapse). I will do my best to restrain this bias, but it is there, and it is fair you be made aware of it.

6. Good w/ speed but notify me if you're gonna outright spread so I can flow on laptop. Send speech docs if spreading or I will not be happy. Slow on tags/authors/analytics. I will clear you.

7. Issues in CX need to be mentioned in a speech for me to evaluate them.

8. If a link turn links to a different impact than the argument it's turning, that impact MUST be weighed for me to evaluate it because these types of arguments don't inherently prevent or hijack impacts, meaning it doesn't function as defense either. Treat it like an impact from case.

9. If a card is disputed throughout the round or has something in it that spikes/responds to another arg, please extend the card name in summary and FF for clarity and signposting.

10. Please warrant new cards/arguments in summary, don't just read a claim that only ever gets warranted in FF.

11. Please weigh because it makes the round clearer and easier for me to judge. Line-by-line is important, but weighing is absolutely necessary. Most teams I've judged haven't weighed, or done so poorly. Weighing doesn't just entail saying why your link/impact is big. Tell me why it's comparatively greater than everything else in the round. Arg interaction is key. Clarity of impact/link weighing is fake news 90% of the time just because people throw those buzzwords at me and just say “we outweigh because our arg is true.” Just saying you outweigh because you access an arg is not weighing. Strength of link is fine with very good COMPARATIVE warranting rather than being a poorly veiled attempt to read new defense in FF.

12. Absent being told otherwise, I default to evaluating the round on several levels. In descending order: framework, comparative weighing, weighing, offense access. I'm open to some theoretical alternative to evaluating the round if it's proposed to me, I.e. procedural args like theory coming first.

13. If you plan on conceding an arg for strategic purposes, I like that because it’s smart. That said, such can be abusive if used at a point where it is nigh impossible for the other team to respond. I do not wanna intervene on this issue, so: it is fair to make strategic concessions, but only in the speech immediately after those args are made. For example, if someone reads terminal link defense alongside a ton of link turns in first rebuttal, your concession should be in second rebuttal. I won’t take this into account by default. This only comes into play if you argue why it’s abusive. If this happens and you do not make an arg about it, I evaluate it normally. I am VERY receptive to theory arguments on this issue, even in the final focus if and ONLY IF the abuse in question happened right before it.

14. As an extension of the above, I don't enter the round with any preconceptions about certain args being abusive. There are no abusive args unless you: A. tell me why the arg is abusive (most people are blippy on this), and B. why that means I shouldn't evaluate them, preferably grounded by some standard like education or fairness (often entirely absent). Or you could read theory, which is fine by me.

15. I tend to evaluate evidence as arguments, unless some arg in round is made that I should eval them otherwise or there is REALLY excessive abuse. That means a few things:

A. Just as I only evaluate arguments as you present them to me, I only eval ev as you present it to me. This means that the claim you present from the ev is how I eval it, and if I call the card and see some other application of the ev that wasn't articulated in round, I'm not gonna consider it.

B. I prefer not to call for cards unless I am told to. In fact, I ABSOLUTELY HATE having to do evidence comparison myself. Please do it for me, it likely won't end well for you if it comes down to this. There are exceptions to this rule for cards I deem important enough to call, and I will admit that metric is somewhat arbitrary. I think, however, that most would agree that such arbitrariness is fine if it leads to accountability. If I call your ev due to an indict, and the specific parts of the ev in question are problematic, my default response is to just drop the ev to minimize intervention. This, of course, can change if your opponents make some argument as to why this should impact the outcome of the round. I also might just call cards for clarification.

C. The only occasion in which I drop a team with the lowest speaks tab will allow for misrepresenting ev is if it is REALLY terrible and malicious, and the abuse is obviously super extreme, i.e. fabricating ev, distortion, or obvious clipping. I haven't had to do this in a round I myself have judged yet, so my threshold for this is very high, don't be alarmed.

16. The Jan 2019 topic has taught me that there are some parts of economics that I do not understand. Explain economics to me in round like I'm five, for both our sakes.

17. I evaluate embedded clash to an extremely limited extent in the absence of analysis/implication in the round itself, and I only do this when it has to be done to resolve the round. My standard for evalling embedded clash is that if the analysis/extension you read is 100% there and just not signposted in its application or is on the wrong part of the flow, I eval it. By 100% there, I mean I could literally cut and paste that verbatim statement on to the arg it clashes with and have zero issue. If I can't literally just add the phrase "On this argument..." to the analysis/extension that's there, I won't eval embedded clash in the absence of analysis. PLEASE do the analysis properly, I hate evalling embedded clash and your speaks will suffer.

18. In terms of theory, I default to competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater, open to otherwise if argued in round. Likewise, if you read a theory shell instead of a PF-y argument about why a certain thing is abusive and shouldn't be evaluated, I will hold it to the standard of a theory shell. Extend the interp verbatim. The shell line-by-line doesn't need to be extended in rebuttal.

Speaker Points

To me, speaks aren't about presentation. I tend to give speaks based on one's strategic decisionmaking and argumentation in the context of a round. Cool strategic moves and good efficiency (especially in the backhalf) are the key to my heart. I’m not a fan of giving speaks based off stylistic performance, mostly because those tend to be informed by some pretty bad norms that disadvantage non-cishet white men. If your strategy is good, I don’t care how you speak, I will give you good speaks.

Here’s the breakdown:

30: You made the best possible strategic decisions and arguments in the context of the round.

29-29.5: You made smart strategic decisions and arguments. Only a few things you could have done better.

28-28.5: Solid argumentation and middle of the line strategic decisionmaking. What I give to the majority of decent rounds I judge.

27-27.5: Passable argumentation with several mistakes, and a noticeable absence of strategic decisionmaking. Round was way more unclear than it should be, and improvements are definitely needed.

26-26.5: Below average. Major mistakes or problems with the debate, definitely needs immediate improvement.

25-25.5: Very below average. Completely mishandled the round. Significant work needed on how the debate is handled.

<25: You probably said something quite offensive or tried to spread cards without sending a speech doc.

About me: I am pursuing a PhD in Chemistry at UT Austin. I competed in PF on the national circuit for 3 years as well as the Austin circuit. I want to preface that if there is any way at all that I can make this round a more safe and fun experience for you, feel free to email me. I did graduate in 2020 so it has been a few years since I've debated so keep that in mind.

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, but that doesn't mean I vote on arguments that aren't fleshed out and blipply extended. I will vote on the least mitigated link chain, with a heavily weighed impact. A debate round should mimic a funnel, meaning that arguments should be collapsed on as the round progresses. It's also helpful if both you and your partner develop a narrative from the beginning of the round. Be sure to signpost as well as give me a clear road map before speeches. And if you say anything sexist, ableist, racist, etc expect an L25.

Speed: If you are going to spread send your speech docs to nehasatish510@gmail.com, also be sure to be aware of your speed around less experienced debaters

Framework: If you read a framework, be sure to actually bring it up as the round progresses, don't just not mention it again after constructive. In general, if a framework isn't provided to me I will default util.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal should frontline offense especially turns.

Summary: Please weigh and collapse. Anything you want me to vote on should be mentioned in summary. Make it clear by this point in the round which arguments you are going for.

Final Focus: Final focus should mirror the summary speech.

Weighing: Dropping jargon such as we outweigh on magnitude/scope/timeframe without explaining/warranting anything to me does not count as weighing. I prefer when you explain why magnitude>scope or timeframe>magnitude, explain why your weighing mechanism should be preferred over your opponents. If you don't weigh I will be forced to do it for you and that means I will have to intervene which I'd rather not do.

Evidence: Be sure you aren't misinterpreting the author's intent. Make sure you can pull up your evidence if your opponents ask for it. Don't do any crazy debater math because if your opponents can't verify that it makes the round un educational. Please be honest with your evidence. If you need me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me in your speech. I won't ask to see any evidence unless you explicitly tell me to because I believe it promotes judge intervention.

Cross: Just relax and don't be rude. If you need me to evaluate something from cross, be sure to mention it in your speech.

Speaks: Speaks are based on clarity and strategy. Please be kind to your opponents as there is a difference between being assertive versus overly aggressive and rude. +1 speaks if you make me laugh.

Theory/K's/CP's: I don't have much familiarity with progressive arguments because as a debater I always debated substance. If you do decide to run theory make sure it is warranted and merited, don't just read it as a means to mess with your opponents. If you run theory I will evaluate it as the most important argument in the round, and be sure to really explain it, and remember I don't have much experience with evaluating it. Although I will vote off of progressive arguments, please don't run progressive arguments on a clearly less experienced debater/novice.

Finally, debate is a stressful activity in itself so please be respectful and be kind to your opponents and have fun:) Please always feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round!

livingston high school '20 (4 years PF, debated @ TOC + Nats) | university of california, berkeley '24

ishan.saxena@berkeley.edu for the email chain

warrants matter (in all speeches would be ideal)

comparatively weigh

debate however you want

be a good person

third-year out coach for Walt Whitman. debated for Edgemont PF for 5 years.

flow judge, tabula rasa with an exception for accessibility 

1. I don't care what your style of debate is in the first half--> just be non-blippy and non-messy in the back half, and you will make me happy.

2. Feel free to go wild with args and collapses. Win the round, and you win my ballot but do it with style and you'll win my heart (and a 30).

3. If both teams agree, I'll judge based on a different paradigm so long as I have the ability to. Literally, go wild.

4. my speaks are based on how strategically good your speech was.

5. speed is good if ur clear, and not blippy. 

6. most things are up for debate--> I drop speaks, not the ballot for things I consider bad debate... eg: 2nd rebuttal disads w/out an implication, or clarity of impact weighing without warrants

7. I have a low threshold for extensions, so make an argument that I should drop unwarranted extensions (e.g. your opponents extend a claim but not the warrant). 

8. theory/kritiks- be accessible, I like shell theory over paragraph theory, I'll evaluate anything. I'll drop speaks if I can tell you are purposefully not being accessible 

9. don't be discriminatory, read content warnings for sensitive topics, and respect pronouns provided by tab. 

10. The only rule for fairness besides accessibility that I default is no new in 2nd ff. Otherwise, warrant out WHY certain rules in debate are unfair (not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal, new responses in 1st summary, etc) and what I should do with it (drop it). 

Email: anik.sen@duke.edu.

I am a lay judge. Use weighing to write my ballot. Ask me questions if you want to know specific preferences.

Auto 29 speaks if you can speak at a conversational speed the entire round.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

• 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

tech > truth but don't be blippy

win the link debate before weighing

About Me: I currently attend Texas A&M University, and have competed in Public Forum for 3 years. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you, feel free to email me. Pronouns: she/her

LD and CX: Please treat me like a mom haha.

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, I will flow however I appreciate clear signposting and a roadmap before your speech. Also if you say anything sexist, racist, ableist etc. expect an L25.

Trigger Warnings: If you are planning on running something surrounding a sensitive topic, actually message your opponents before the round or read a trigger warning at the beginning of your speech and give your opponents a chance to opt out, and actually read a different constructive if they ask you to.

Speed: I can flow speed, but if your gonna spread send the doc. If you think something is super important and round defining make sure it is said at an understandable pace. If you are spreading against a clearly less experienced team I will dock your speaks.

How I vote: I am of the belief that a debate round should look like a funnel, as the round progresses the number of arguments decrease but those that remain are deep, well-warranted, weighed and clearly extended through all speeches. I will vote on the best weighed, least mitigated impact, with the clearest and most warranted link chain. Develop a narrative starting in constructive and continuing throughout all your speeches.

I think defense in the first rebuttal is sticky (first summary does not have to extend it unless it is frontlined in the second rebuttal), and require the second rebuttal to respond to offense on their case.

I am tech over truth in most cases- however, I won't vote off something that you blippily extend and you haven't fleshed out and explained, even if the other team doesn't respond to it.

Weighing: I hate hate hate being forced to intervene and only vote off of impacts that are weighed- meaning explain to me why your impacts, as well as links, are the most strong and the most important to consider in the round. Also I don't consider dropping weighing jargon as weighing. Do not say we short circuit/outweigh on magnitude/timeframe without warranting WHY you outweigh that is NOT WEIGHING. Explain why your weighing mechanism is better than your opponents if you have competing mechanisms.

Extensions: This means in order for me to evaluate your argument, I need a clear explanation of the whole link chain leading down to the impact in summary/ff. If you just read me a card name in rebuttal/summary/final focus without reading the argument, and the warrant behind it, I won't evaluate the argument. The same concept applies to impacts, if you skip to them without explaining to me how you got there, I won't vote off of them.

Cross: I won't vote off of anything in cross unless you bring it up in a speech, but if you are overly aggressive or rude I will dock speaker points.

Summary: I LOVE a good big-picture summary, but if that's not your style I'm okay with line by line too, but please remain clear. Weigh!!!! First summary doesn't have to extend all defense, but if it is frontlined in second rebuttal, or is super important and round defining extend it, also respond to turns.

Final Focus: Voters are appreciated, I won't vote off an argument that wasn't extended in summary.

Speaks: I start at a 27.5 and based off of both strategic decisions in the round as well as clarity, sportsmanship (be nice) I will either go up or down from there. But if your opponents are being sassy, you can be sassy back as long as you aren't rude. Extra points if you make me laugh-making fun jokes/puns related to the topic like fun contention names, or quoting vines/tik toks in speeches or crossfire. Read the room, if your opponents are clearly less experienced or uncomfortable with the attitude you are presenting I will dock speaks.

Evidence: I won't call for it unless you ask me to, or if you haven't weighed and I have to intervene, or like if it's really contested or something. Also paraphrasing is okay as long as you're not misconstruing the evidence and don't extrapolate values from a piece of evidence using "debater math" it's unfair to your opponents and not educational. If you take forever to find evidence I will dock speaks.

Framework: I default util (the greatest good for the most amount of people) unless you read something different, don't read a framework in constructive unless you are going to bring it up in your later speeches as a weighing mechanism

Theory/K's/Progressive Arguments: I don't have enough familiarity with these for me to comfortably vote off of them. If the shell is super clear and extended through the whole round I will evaluate it just like any other argument, but I don't have enough technical experience to be comfortable making decisions on progressive rounds that are super close, so if you don't want a weird decision just don't run the argument. Make sure it is MERITED, meaning you aren't reading it just to trip up your opponents and waste everybody's time. I will dock speaks if you are running something progressive on a clearly less experienced team.

Finally, Debate is supposed to be a fun and educational activity, please treat it as such and not scream at each other or make me stressed out, if you have any questions, message me or ask me before round.

My email is bellamanday@gmail.com

" Last changed 11 January 2024 2:17 PM EST" - Tabroom 2024 ):

Hello!

I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook, email me (kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com), or ask me before the round.

IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE SEXIST, RACIST, ABLEIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, EXTREMELY RUDE, ETC. I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. If some form of abuse or violence occurs in round and I don't immediately react, please feel free to FB PM me or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com. [I say this because as a cis het woman, I may not be able to pick up on certain types of violence and I believe debaters should determine their level of safety and/or comfort

General Stuff:

- You should read trigger warnings if you have the slightest inclination your argument could trigger someone

- use people's pronouns or gender neutral language in the case pronouns aren't disclosed

- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.

- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal

- If you're speaking second, you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary abusive

- Be nice

- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)

- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.

- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. Feel free to FB message me before the round, come up to me privately, or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com

Summary/ FF:

- Summary and FF should mirror each other

- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be responded to first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary. First summary should frontline turns

- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts

- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.

Speed:

Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you (not writing, looking confused, etc.).

Evidence:

I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision

Progressive Argumentation:

I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round or you feel unsafe, please feel free to use these forms of argumentation. Just explain your argument well. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary (hint: probably don't read disclosure theory). This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K.

Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!

Edina '21 - Duke '25

I debated for Edina MZ in Minnesota and qualified to TOC all 4 years of high school.

If you wish to have any accommodations to make the debate safer/better or have any extra questions after reading the paradigm, contact me on Facebook Messenger or @ ryan.zhu@duke.edu

put me on the email chain if there is one: (email above)

for Columbia!: please start the round on time <3

tl:dr - tech > truth judge - tabula rasa. I'll flow the entire round, debate how you want - line by line/big picture idc - time yourselves - Everything in FF should be in summary.

- have fun! crack jokes - itll make the whole debate more fun and enjoyable

- sit, stand, wear casual clothes, wear formal clothes, I'm good with whatever makes y'all most comfortable

- i'll disclose at the end of the round if y'all want

speed: i can keep up and flow anywhere up to 300wpm. send a speech doc to me if you're gonna spread and make sure you aren't excluding your opponents. be smart

weighing: pls pls weigh! weighing is the easiest way to win the round and structures how i view the debate. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.

second rebuttal: second rebuttal should frontline at the least turns, but prolly defense also. split however you want (ie 2/2 or 3/1).

first summary: unfrontlined defense is sticky for first summary and can go from rebuttal to final focus. if it is frontlined, still need to extend it. turns should always be in summary.

theory: i'm good with theory arguments as long as there is a real violation, like the other team not reading a content warning for a potentially triggering argument. i'm not gonna vote on friv theory (like shoe theory). read paraphrase theory at your own risk (make sure there's an actual violation with their ev, don't run it just to run it). paragraph theory is fine if you don't know how to write the full shell.

Ks: run at your own risk, but explain it well. I'll listen to the arg and know how they work but prolly won't know the lit base that well.

tricks: no. just don't

speaks: Average ~ 28.5 and go up/down the 0.1 scale from that. strategic decisions and collapsing earn a bump. i'm not gonna evaluate 30s theory.

evidence: cut cards are a must - whether you read those cut cards verbatim or paraphrase them is up to you. If anyone calls for ev, plz be able to give them the card promptly or just send out speech docs. if you are paraphrasing and i call for evidence at the end of the round, plz give me the card and the paraphrase you read!

don't do these:

If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), you will get the L and lowest possible speaks. Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.

bad evidence: some evidence has gotten really bad, so i'll reserve the right to drop args or you entirely based on evidence violations - please don't let it come to this tho :)

dumping unwarranted args: don't read as many arguments as you can if it means sacrificing the warranting and explanation. that being said, i'm fine with any crazy arguments as long as there are warrants and implications. quality > quantity plz.

- if you have any more questions, anything in this paradigm applies to me too