I'm a former debater, having debated Novice LD and Varsity PF.

It's been a hot minute since I've thought about debate, so I've definitely lost a fair amount of nuance. More likely than not, my only preparation for the topic is reading the resolution the morning of the first round, so you best explain things well (I have a lay understanding of the arguments).

My default frame-work is Util, but I'm not opposed to other, well-argued weighing mechanisms. Do not give new in the two, don’t bring up new arguments in the FF or Sum. I don't flow cross, but it's still binding, and I will use it for speaks. Feel free to give off-time roadmaps, and I love sign-posting, the more, the better. Be polite, or I will give you low speaks.

SPEED: I am not here to stress about flowing 400 wpm. If you are very fast/difficult to understand, I just won’t flow you, and I judge based on what I have on the flow.

Pretty standard flow judge.

General Stuff:

Don't speak too fast.

Please weigh.

Be organized+signpost.

Don't mislabel turns.

I value humor.

Rebuttal:

-I like overviews/terminal defense.

-I prefer good logic over just dumping a bunch of cards on me. If you read evidence, contextualize it. If you just have a massive card dump without explanations, I won't flow the responses if they are not immediately understandable to me.

Summary:

-Structure summaries around voters.

-You are much better off collapsing arguments into one/two voters, rather than blippy extensions

-Don't extend through ink

-Summary overviews are also nice

-Please weigh in summary and provide actual justifications for your weighing.

Final Focus:

-I will not really consider any offense in Final Focus that was not in Summary

-Provide specific voters that carry from Summary.

Crossfire:

-I don't really flow Crossfire, but I will pay attention/write anything down that is important. If you want me to consider it, it needs to be brought up in speech.

Fiat:

• I grant Neg pretty much 0 fiat. I think this is the intention of the vague "no counterplans in pf" rule that people bring up all the time.
• This means that if you're negating a normative resolution, I think you are restricted to defending the status quo.
• if you're running some sort of alternative solvency on neg, you need to prove to me that this alternative will occur in the status quo, but that the affirmative advocacy is preventing the alternative from happening or trading off with it in some other way.
• I grant the aff the weakest fiat possible. You can fiat that the resolution will happen, but beyond that, you're pretty much restricted to defending what would most likely happen in the real world given the conditions set by resolution. This means you can't fiat out of political conditions like backlash, political capital, cutgo, etc.
• Also, this means that your advocacy should be a likely implementation of the resolution in the real world. If the resolution says we should send ground troops to Iraq, you can't fiat that this means we should send troops to only one specific village in Iraq because realistically, this isn't how a ground intervention in Iraq would go.

Please ask in-round if interested, happy to answer any questions! :)

experience on nat circuit

weighing and clash give you higher speaker points

i prefer lay but will judge tech need be

Please don't say anything you know to be objectively and/or blatantly false. The more convincing side wins.

Mom what is the Netflix password

I do not flow cross; I do ask for it to be civil and used for asking questions. Cross is not used to start arguments and become stuck on one topic of discussion. I encourage weighing, good sportsmanship, and a mutually agreed upon framework on which to base the round. The most important thing I look for is organization within speeches. The better a speech's organization, the easier it is to flow. If I am able to follow a team's arguments I am more likely to lean in their favor. I want the ability to follow a team's train of thought on why they won the round/certain points.

Hello!

I did PF for four years at Bronx, so I am good with flow stuff but fine either way. I'm good with speed and jargon, but don't use either to be obnoxious to your opponents.

Please please please weigh everything in the round, or if you drop something, tell me why so I don't have to do that myself!

Puns are always appreciated.

This was super general, so if you have any more specific questions feel free to ask before round, I didn't really know what stylistic things to specify here but am happy to answer more specific questions.

Hello! My name is Daniel (he/him/his) and I competed in Public Forum for six years. I'm open to all styles, but I prefer narrative debate: slow speeches with minimal jargon that tell a story. I have also been out of debate for a couple years now, so just keep in mind that I may not be up to date on the meta.

Good luck, and don't forget to have fun! You can find specific preferences below.

Inclusivity and anti-oppression

Debate excludes and marginalizes many groups of people. When we participate in this activity, we should try to make it as inclusive and just as possible. We should check our internal biases when interacting with teammates, competitors, judges, observers, and anyone else in the debate space. Be mindful of the real-world impact your arguments may have and be careful not to use marginalized people as tools to win ballots. Obviously, none of us should tolerate any kind of bigotry.

Weighing is key; probability is not weighing

Weighing is the easiest way to win debates so start weighing early, bring it up often, and develop it throughout the round. Don't just make arguments; explain why, even if your opponent's arguments have some merit, your arguments matter more.

Weighing mechanisms like "probability, strength of link, or risk of impact" assume that your opponent's arguments aren't true, placing the burden on you to disprove their arguments and defeating the strategic value of weighing. Don't make me vote on probability weighing because you may not be pleased with the outcome.

Disclosure is good

I believe that Public Forum teams should disclose. I will not penalize teams that don't disclose, but I will reward teams that do with a 1 point speaker boost – just let me know your that stuff is on the wiki before the round starts. You can find the link to the wiki here, as well as a guide to putting your cases on the wiki here.

"Truth"/tech

I believe that flows are very useful ways to track what is going on in the debate, and I also want to be persuaded. I'll try my best to be open-minded, and I acknowledge that I enter the round with my own experiences and views.

The second rebuttal should include frontlining

Not mandatory, just a preference, so don't worry if you don't get to it. The more times you make an argument, the more likely it is to persuade me.

The summaries must extend defense

If you want defense in final focus, you must extend that through summary. Three minutes is enough time for summary speakers to extend defense.

Progressive arguments, critical arguments, and theory must be accessible

Go for it! Your arguments must be accessible to everyone in the round (opponents, me/other judges, spectators). Please watch the speed and jargon.

speak slow and weigh

I go to college, but I did four years of PF with Princeton High School and it was a lit time. I’m pretty flow, but I probs won’t know a lot about the topic. I love judging!!

Important things:

1. Pls be nice :'), ie no interrupting or talking over people

2. I don’t like when people whisper or react non-verbally during speeches (like making faces)

3. Signposting and well structured speeches

4. Frontline frontline frontline

5. Please collapse in final speeches!

6. I love me some weighing in later speeches → easiest way to my ballot

7. Explain your arguments ~with analysis and logic~ as I vote on thing that Make Sense and not on cards

8. I HATE long metaphors that don’t really make sense and/or are grossly over-exaggerated lol

9. If you ask me to call for a card I probs will, or if it's highly contested

Overall, I vote pretty much entirely on flow (but if you talk too fast I will miss things) and if you make references to cardi b you will see it in your speaker points ;)

Feel free to ask me questions before/after round!

Did pf in high school but don’t judge very often. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

If you convince me you are right, I will vote for you.

This is Public Forum Debate. Look over what the description of PF is:

In contrast to policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate, there is little focus on extreme speed or arcane debate jargon or argumentation theory; instead, successful public forum debaters must make persuasive and logical arguments in a manner that is accessible to a wide variety of audiences. Public forum debate also focuses on not only logical, but research based arguments.

If you want me to look at evidence, tell me, but don't overdue it.

Rudeness will be penalized. Doing things in PF that are not supposed to be done in PF will be penalized.

If you're reading this paradigm, chances are that I'll be judging your upcoming round (or perhaps you're just curious - that's okay too). I will do what I can to make the round a good experience for everyone involved. I am willing to offer feedback if asked for it but I won't always disclose. Usually, if I don't disclose, I don't actually know who won the round and I have to go over the flow again.

Public Forum:

Perhaps the most important part of this paradigm is a somewhat a subjective point (some judges are more lenient), but if you don't bring a point up during the summary, you won't win on it in final focus. This is the only way both teams can have an equal view of the round heading into final (speaking second should not offer an insurmountable advantage to one side). You may extend defense that was brought up in rebuttal, but any offense must be in both summary and final focus.

Comments that are blatantly racist, sexist, or homophobic are grounds for an immediate end to the round, me contacting your coach, and your opponents winning (even if all of your arguments were better). Everyone deserves respect. Show some basic human decency and you'll be fine.

Oh, and given that train of thought, no morally reprehensible arguments. An alarmingly common one: I know humans have had negative effects on the environment but that does not give you a good enough reason to advocate for genocide or similar.

Please weigh your arguments! This is a crucial element of debate. Explain why you are right, don't just list a bunch of potential reasons. If there is absolutely no weighing in a round, I'll do it as I see fit, but it'll probably cost you in speaker points. In a similar vein, if you have evidence that conflicts, explain why I should believe you and not your opponents; do not say "Well, I have a study that says ___, so my opponent's study is wrong" without explaining that your study is more recent, has a larger sample size, is from a less biased source (be careful about that one, though, as bias doesn't inherently indicate falsehood), etc.

I'm comfortable up to about a varsity Lincoln-Douglas level of speed but that is the case if and only if you speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I will say "Clear" once. If no improvement is made, I will put my pen down until I hear something intelligible. If you see me put down my pen during your speech, you need to change something.

Keep crossfire civil. It's a time to ask questions and clarify points in the round, not a time to argue with your opponent. I'll be more impressed by coherent explanations and intelligent questions than by one team being louder than the other. I usually flow crossfires (although I won't do so if it devolves into a shouting match, which would hurt speaker points anyway) but if you want me to weigh a point brought up in cross, you have to inform me of this in your next speech.

Signposting is appreciated. Let me know what points you are responding to or are extending and where they are in the case. I'm only human and I do make mistakes, so telling me what you're addressing will give me a better chance to follow your argument on the flow. That being said, it's not explicitly required by me as I understand that you might have time constraints. Of course, if you jump all over the flow with no indication of what you're addressing, I probably won't get it all down so do so at your own peril.

Cards! Yes, those magnificent things you're citing as evidence. There's a lot to say about these but I'll try to keep it brief. First is that deliberately misconstruing cards is very far from okay. Omit that all-important "not" in your quote by substituting in an ellipses? Falsify data or sources? I will feel no guilt as I inform your coach, tab, etc. and give your opponents the round. I understand that mistakes can be made and I certainly won't hold them against you (though if you fail to produce challenged evidence upon request and your opponents ask me to drop it from the flow, I will) but there's no excuse for evidence that the distortion is deliberate and not just a matter of perception/interpretation. Anyone can call for cards between speeches and prep time starts when the team who requested it gets the evidence. While the team searches, no talking between the members of the requesting team will be allowed; calling for cards should not be a tactic to get more prep time.

Lincoln-Douglas:

My experience with LD in practice is somewhat more limited than with PF. However, I am familiar with much of the literature and my background with the theory is quite solid, though perhaps not to the same extent as someone who has been debating LD for many years.

If you're going to run a K, you'll probably want to offer at least some explanation, though the ones and philosophers I'm most comfortable with are Cap K's, queer theory, Deleuze and Guattari, Spanos, Nietzsche, and feminist jurisprudence. I have a passing familiarity with Lacan, biopower, Baudrillard (more so with the nuclear ones than the ecology bits), and probably a few others I'm forgetting. Whatever you run, though, I'll be more impressed by a clear articulation of what it means and why I should care than by a hastily spouted tagline and a proclamation that, because X said something, you win.

Theory is fun, somewhat topical debate is better. I'll only vote on fairness/abuse if you spell out the clear link AND explain why the issue means you should have my vote... if one side provides clear and topical analysis, philosophy, etc. and the other just says "that's unfair" without offering any meaning to the imbalance, I have no reason to go for the fairness argument. Now, if you try to explain the purpose of debate and how me voting against an unfair or abusive argument helps serve that purpose, we might have a round on our hands.

I'm fine with spreading but I will ask you to email me the document or have a flash drive ready. If you don't, it's pretty unlikely I'll manage to flow everything or even remember all that you're trying to convey. If I can't understand you, I'll yell (or somewhat loudly say) "clear" a few times but eventually, if no change is made, I give up and try to follow along as best I can. If you make me do this, you'll probably lose some speaker points.

Everyone:

The general gist of all this is to be decent human beings and clearly explain why your arguments matter. Do both of those and chances are you'll be fine.

If you have questions about anything on here (or about anything I've omitted), please feel free to ask before the round.

Most importantly, though, debate is a learning experience for everyone, so make the most of it. Good luck and enjoy the tournament!

I'm a varsity public forum debater at Bronx Science. I'll flow everything and vote off my flow. Logic is more important to me than cards but don't make ~outlandish~ claims that can't be warranted

also weigh and signpost and extend what you care about and you should be good

I am a litigator with 28 years experience. I expect clear, concise, well layed out cases and oral arguments. I expect arguments to be strong, articulate and most importantly, professional. If you are citing cases or facts, I expect you to substantiate those claims and have evidence readily available. I consider myself firm but fair! Please remember to be polite and respectful during the debate!

.

Please try to keep this round cordial. I like evidence, but it is far more important that you explain your links. A fully logical case with a few pieces of good evidence is super convincing to me. Please remember to give an overview of what's important and unclear in summary; make sure to emphasize impacts with some warranting in FF. Also, try to have fun!

I used to do PF for Regis High School. I go to Columbia now.

Don't be mean. Don't misrepresent evidence. Quality of args over quantity is def preferable.

I am a lay (I know some of you will think lame) judge. Seriously though, I do not appreciate speed, and I value presentation and convincing arguments. If I can't understand you or your points then I will not be able to evaluate the round effectively.

Debate is love

Debate is life

Debate is Joe O'Neill

Debate is my Computer Password

I debated for four years at Bronx Science and am currently a junior at Yale. That probably makes me a pretty traditional flow judge at this point, but I have no idea. I would say do normal things and you're good

If you want more specifics

I don't think that first summary has to cover terminal defense. I also don't think second rebuttal has the burden of frontlining your own case. Personally, I probably don't think either is strategic, but it is totally up to you

I think probability is a really undervalued standard in debate. More compelling than any impact calculus is convincing me that your impacts will materialize in the first place. This often means winning on the link level, but also relates to the types of arguments you make. In general, I have a low bar for what constitutes a good response to low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments, and I would be very receptive to teams that use probability as a way to evaluate the round

On a similar note, I think it is important that teams maintain the truth value of their arguments over the course of the entire round. I don't think you can concede defense on an argument to get out of a turn your opponent reads on it. You ran that argument — you should at least be able to defend that it is true for the entirety of the round

I am a big fan of narrative debate and teams that tell a cohesive story over the course of their speeches. In the end, the best teams will be able to distill my decision to a single sentence as to why I should believe the resolution is or is not true. It is really persuasive when that thesis is articulated from the jump

Theoretically, I am open to theory and Ks, but truthfully I had very little experience with them when I debated. While I understand that is what tech debate has been gravitating towards, I will have a very hard time voting for a non-topical argument. If you are running theory or a K as your central strategy, you should think of striking me

s/o Mr. Huth, Ben and Elias :), and the Bronx debate team. Big things only

~Updated for Feb 2022~

FYI I have not judged in approximately a year and I have not interacted with debate in just as long. I would recommend taking this into account while prepping strats and speaking MUCH SLOWER than you usually would.

Conflicts: Walt Whitman, Lexington, Hunter, Hamilton RM

Send docs: 19.prasadm@gmail.com

I did LD and PF at Lexington HS (MA) 2015-2019.

Disclaimers:

Hello! This is ZOOM debate which means it is GLITCHY and GROSS pls SLOW down!

Used to be Yale 2020, now thoughts on e-debate in general: I'm tired, I am burned out, and I get very bored listening to badly explained Baudrillard Ks multiple rounds in a row. If you do pref me, know that double flighted tournaments make my eyes *burn* and I will be flowing on paper for most rounds if it's a double flighted tournament. I used to care a lot about the things listed below. To some extent I still do, but I haven't taught/intensely thought about debate since summer 2019 so at the moment I'm not very invested in specific types of arguments or up to speed with whatever is trendy this season. Judging over Zoom is exhausting and it's honestly pretty hard for me to flow that well with little voices screaming out of my laptop. Please, please, please, for the love of all things good, SLOW DOWN. At least for tags. I'm begging.

PLEASE TRIGGER WARN APPROPRIATELY!!! If you don't know how please ask!

Postrounding is a no <3. Questions about strats are fine, but you won't change my ballot.

LD:

Short version.

Ks we love. LARP/policy is solid. Traditional is also good. Phil is kinda meh, you'd need to explain it very well. Please leave your tricks, skep, and frivolous theory at home, I don't trust myself to evaluate them. Probably okay at evaluating T/theory if there is a persuasive abuse story. If you read T/theory the shell needs to have an impact. Disclosure and email chains are good. When you extend or make new arguments don't forget to implicate them! Tell me what comes first and why.

Long version.

I used to vibe p hard with Mina's paradigm and I share a lot of her views on debate. I was also heavily influenced by Paloma O'Connor, CQ, and David Asafu-Adjaye. As a result, I'm not a fan of the whole "debate is a game" mindset and doing whatever it takes to win a round. Debate is about education, not about your record. Also -- I'm sorry, fairness is not a voter.

Kritiks/Non-T K affs/Performance

I mostly ran these as a debater so these are my favorite arguments. I really like hearing performance affs but you also need to be able to point to something the aff actually does.

That being said, don't read random Ks in front of me just because of my paradigm. I need to see a clear link and know what the alt does. Links of omission are ~questionable~ and I'm sympathetic to args against them. I'm also extremely picky when it comes to people reading and other kritiks relating to indigenous scholarship. I think a lot of authors are bastardized and commodified in debate and I see this the most with indigenous scholarship. Not uber familiar with all K lit, especially newer pessimism arguments.

New microaggression independent voter args that seem to be trendy and function on some sort of level between theory and K, but probably above policy?

Impact these out if you're reading them. I'm not going to vote off of a blippy one line claiming something is an "independent voter" or a "voting issue" and no implication of the argument. Also, don't just drop all the other flows because you think something is an independent voter -- I don't think this is very strategic; explain how it interacts with the other flows and which layer of the round it should be evaluated on. I don't really enjoy voting off these arguments...tbh they make me kinda uncomfy, but if they're warranted and impacted I will.

Plans/CPs/DAs/LARPy policy stuff

These are cool, low key would like to judge more of them. Just be wary of super long link chains. I default to comparative worlds in most debates (esp when framing becomes murky) so this is probably the type of debate best equipped for that.

T/Theory

I did not like these arguments as a debater and I generally do not enjoy judging them. I'm also not very good at judging them so PLEASE make the abuse story very clear and SLOW DOWN A LOT.

Post Big Lex 2020 edit: I'm honestly starting to hate these arguments less. I'm not completely opposed to T and would probably be down to judge more non-T K affs vs T rather than bad/awkward K v Ks.

Yale 2020: Idk if this is a new thing but y'all aren't impacting your shells. Like great you just spent a minute reading T, but didn't tell me what to do about it. DTD or DTA, but if not idk what I'm supposed to do with the shell lol.

Blake 2020: If you read disclosure against a trad/small school debater who is not familiar with the wiki I will probably not vote on the shell,,, like bruh why?

T v K

I went for K over T a lot as a debater but I'm gonna try to be tab about this and say both sides are gonna need hella warrants and hella weighing when making these arguments.

Tricks/a prioris/friv theory

just no <3.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28.5 and then move up or down depending on what y'all do. Go slow at first and let me get used to you before you go full speed. I'll say clear 2-3 times but if nothing changes don't expect my flow to be that great and I'm not gonna check the speech doc to play catch up. Be strategic and don't be rude and you'll probably be happy with your speaks. Read: adapt to your opponent if they have considerably less experience than you. I am not afraid of giving a mean debater with a good strat a 26.

PF:

I didn't do a ton of PF because I don't think it's very nuanced/not well-structured. Biases aside, just make good extensions, do a good amount of weighing and READ ACTUAL CARDS.

good luck

I debated for four years at Stuyvesant. Now I'm a senior at Yale.

I'm open-minded and I like creative arguments and frameworks. If you want to run something risky and fun for our round, I'm into it.

I have a pretty low tolerance for rudeness and anything that excludes your opponent from participating in a fair round (in particular, esoteric debate jargon and excessive speed).

I am flowing. Please make sure summary and FF are super clear and even a little repetitive. If you want me to vote on something, you should cleanly extend it. If an argument is important, really hit me over the head with it. It's hard for me to vote on something that came up for 5 seconds in FF.

If you weigh clearly and starting early in the round, and give me a consistent, coherent narrative to vote on, you will probably win.

I debated at Poly Prep for three years and am two years off the circuit. I make my decisions based on my flow.

Some things to note before the round:

1. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

2. Be nice.

3. Weigh as early as possible

4. Please signpost

5. Do not speak too quickly

Hello! I’m Michelle and I did four years of Public Forum debate at Princeton High School. I currently go to the University of Pennsylvania.

Debate things~

I'm flow, but also a little rusty so I won't remember every detail or know a ton about the topic beforehand.

I can follow speed, but don't spread otherwise I can't write down what you say. I generally give high speaks (28+) unless your rude, I can't hear/understand you, etc. If you ask me to call for a card then I will. I'll disclose if both teams want me to.

Keep off-time roadmaps short if you're going to use them. Other than that, I'm not too picky about what you do in round stylistically. Just remember to warrant your evidence, frontline when necessary, signpost, extend, collapse into voters (!!) and WEIGH. If you want to win off of something, really emphasize it. Don't just turn the round into a response battle of who gets the last word.

I really like creative/unique taglines and arguments as long as they make sense.

If you ask to see one of your opponent's cards, don't prep while they're looking for it.

Absolutely horrible:

1. extending through ink (ie. saying that they didn't respond when they did)
2. miscutting/misconstruing/making up cards
3. rudeness, arrogance, speaking over your opponents, shaking your head while they're speaking, making faces, etc.

Pet peeves:

1. not asking questions in cross (or making a statement and just adding “right?” or “wouldn’t you agree?”)
2. rhetorical questions in rebuttal
3. using metaphors/analogies as warrants
4. talking to your partner while not running prep

I'm Bill, a varsity PF debater & novice PF judge. I look forward to having you in my round. Here are some things I expect from a quality round of debate.

General Stuff About Me

I flow and I vote based on the flow. This flow does not include anything said during crossfire. If you want something in my flow, it better be in a speech.

Keep track of your own prep time. When time is up in a speech, finish your sentence, and that's it. If you continue to speak I'll deduct speaker points.

I will give oral feedback, time permitting. I will usually disclose, unless I actually do not know who won the round. I always write up a comprehensive and (hopefully) helpful RFD. Read the RFD even if you won, because there's always room to improve.

Don't be sexist, homophobic, etc. This goes without saying.

Finally, extensions are key. You will lose if you do not extend cards, no matter how strong your argument.

Cases

I like logically structured cases. Don't try to smush three contentions into one, and don't try to expand one argument into different subpoints. Break the case up where it's logical and easier to flow.

I really like niche and unique arguments, but you can easily win on a stock argument if you argue it well. This means lots of evidence to corroborate your claims, and clear links leading to an explicit terminal impact.

Please read cases with authority and confidence. Spread, and I'll drop you as fast as you're speaking. Public forum is pointless if most of the public wouldn't be able to understand half of what you're saying. I like appropriate emphasis and good eye contact. You're not just reading from a script, you're trying to convince me.

Rebuttal

I prefer an organized rebuttal that goes straight down the opponent's case. If you're doing something peculiar, that's fine, but please warn me before hand. Don't jump around their case unless you make it completely clear where you are in the case.

If I'm not able to get something down on my flow, it's as if you never said it. This means you need to signpost. I want to know a) which contention you're on and b) what specific claim, statistic, or argument that you're responding to.

Please don't be redundant. If you don't have enough substance to fill four minutes, then don't fill four minutes. If I stop typing, that means you should move on to your next point. The best rebuttals are those that keep me typing for all four minutes.

Know when a logical rebuttal is appropriate and when evidence and statistics are necessary. For example, some arguments can be completely shut down by a post hoc (correlation isn't causation) argument. For other arguments, you need to present contrary evidence, and explain why your evidence is better than theirs.

Summary

Ah, summary. I believe summary is by far the hardest speech in the round. A good summary does not address every point in rebuttal. A good summary PRIORITIZES certain arguments, EXPLAINS that prioritization, and then ARGUES. In other words, you need to establish your framework and explain the most important points in the round. Then, you need to argue that you've won that point.

Generally, after addressing framework, pick one main point of contention from their case and one point of contention from your case. Finally weigh impacts. If you don't weigh then I have to weigh for you, and I don't like doing that because then I feel like neither team deserves a win, because I have to complete the argument for you.

In other words, explaining why your evidence or impact is more valid than theirs is just as important as actually articulating your evidence. If both teams present opposing evidence, it is YOUR job to explain why your evidence is better than your opponents'.

The first speaking team may bring up new responses in their summary but not entirely new arguments. The second team may not bring up new responses (or arguments), because it does not leave enough time to the other team to respond.

Please extend any evidence that you want me to vote on. Extending evidence implicitly is fine, but it's less convincing than re-explaining the card.

Final Focus

FF is an updated summary. If you do voters in summary, do voters in final. If you go contention by contention in summary, go contention by contention in FF. I want the same general structure.

That said, your final focus must be responsive to your opponents' summary (or final focus). This means that you need to RE-PRIORITIZE the round and WEIGH (see below for how to weigh and how I like weighing done).

I like emphasis and clarity, but not redundancy. If you think you have not explained yourself clearly enough, feel free to re-explain and elaborate.

I will only consider arguments that are mentioned in your final focus. If it's not there, I'm not considering it when I decide who wins. If you are the second speaking team, please do not mention anything that you did not extend in summary. If you are the first speaking team, please do not mention anything you did not extend in rebuttal.

How do I weigh?

There are multiple ways to weigh. You can weigh on probability, scope, magnitude, and other quantities. If you can do probability analysis or multiply scope by magnitude in your head (correctly), you bet that your speaker points are going to be sky high.

I like probability analysis the most.

Anyway, point is, please weigh. It makes my job infinitely easier and it actually makes me want to vote for you! If you make me want to vote for you, you're doing something right, and your speaker points will reflect that.

don’t be mean :(

i did pf at bronx. i now go to uchicago

general round wise:

- i'm flow, but not super techy. i will know your jargon, but give you an exasperated look if you use too much of it.

- i have the fine motor skills of an elementary schooler. This means i cannot write or type super fast, so I do not flow things like card names. If you extend just a card name I will be confused (so please avoid saying stuff like "extend Johnson '15" with no clarification of what Johnson says).

- if you try to run some progressive tomfoolery, i will be hesitant to vote for you. By no means does this guarantee a loss, but you are putting yourself at a disadvantage cause I am from the northeast and my eyes will probably glaze over if you say the word theory.

- on evidence: tech> truth. by using sketchy cards you are running a risk. if you indict evidence, you gotta warrant your indictment. if evidence is indicted in the round and a team extends it into ff, i will wanna see it before my rfd (if i forget this feel free to remind me). but never fear! if you are using sketchy evidence ill only evaluate it with the warrant provided, so run it with the hope they dont call ya out too good.

- if you wanna email me stuff send it to zerof@uchicago.edu. I am not big on recreational literacy, so unless you ask me to read something in round I will not read it.