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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

add me to the email chain: arnavj214@gmail.com

FOR PF

tech > truth

Everything in ff must be in summary

weigh

turns must be responded to in second rebuttal

all offense not responded to in rebuttal is conceded

cross won't affect my decision so bring up anything important that happens in cross in a speech

collapse plssss

--

“If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

--

Paradigm for Harker Intramural: 

1. Use solid evidence and good persuasion techniques. Make sure you follow the evidence standard if you read a card. 

2. Make sure to weigh the arguments, do impact calculations, and tell me why you should win the debate. 

3. Respond to your opponent's arguments during the rebuttal. 

2. Email your opponent(s) and me. 19riyas@students.harker.org

3. Be respectful during the debate! 

Paradigm for Harker Intramural 6 

I'm a varsity LD debater at the Harker Upper School. For a more detailed paradigm you can look here: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Achten%2C+Greg. You can also look at Molly Wancewicz or Anusha Kuppahally's paradigms. 

General: 

I am pretty okay with most arguments. Don't forget to weigh in the 2nr and 2ar. 

Don't run frivolous theory  

Speaks: 

I will average between a 28-30 unless you are blatantly rude or offensive 

I'm fine with speed but I will say "clear" if I can't understand you. If I have to say "clear" more than twice I will dock speaks 

Evidence: 

Don't clip cards 

Flash/email both your opponent and me. My email is 19nehat@students.harker.org. 

My paradigm is pretty similar to this one: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35843

*EXCEPTION* I will accept what the evidence says unless the other team asks enough questions that make it sound stupid. I will not vote for anything that sounds incredible or just completely dumb.

General:

1. Assume I'm bad at debate. I hate doing work.

2. If you read two cards correctly and they make sense, I will buy them instantly. (these are not specific for a reason)

• Guardian card that says 420.
• A card that says chance of civil war jumps to ~77.6%.

3. I don't know how to evaluate theory. Shoutout to Kyle Chong.

Speaks:

1. I don't often give 30s but if you make me laugh or make me cringe, I’ll give you a 30. Also, if you make a half decent pun with the topic, I’ll give you a 30.

2. If you go more than 5 seconds over time I’ll take off 0.5 speaks per second after.

3. I’ll take off a point every time a terrible analogy is used. (selling an apple for $5 is not comparable to international trade)

Evidence:

1. Make me call for it. I also hate reading a lot, so don't tell me to read it unless you think it’s critical.

2. If you read a card I know, you should hope you're not misrepresenting it.

Case read:

Speed is not an issue.

Cross-x:

1. You get first question if you speak first.

2. Don't be mean.

3. Refer to point 2.

4. Refer to point 2.

5. Point 2 is really important.

Summary/FF:

1. Anything works.

2. No new evidence in FF.

Argument stuff:

1. If you read a link turn and say "if you don't buy that", then proceed with an impact turn, you better explain why I can't evaluate your impact turn under your link turn. Otherwise, it's a double turn.

2. If you read anything diabetes or sugar related, I will not like the arg. Although it is important to recognize that whether I like the argument does not matter. If it’s well developed, I'll vote for it.

Paradigm only applies for PF.

See Jimmy Lin's (the Harker School) Paradigm (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Jimmy&search_last=).

Two places where i disagree with jimmy

1. go slow (<800 word cases)

2. i dont believe in theory as much as jimmy but it is acceptable