Do whatever you want, i don't really care. Chances are I'll get distracted by interesting objects in the room we're in, it's happened before.

Extra speaker points for people who incorporate some aspect of the "chicken" and make me laugh.

I will end the debate after the 1NC and give you the ballot if you read an Earthworm DA or T-too topical.

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!

update for toc: i haven't done much research on the topic, so please don't use assume I know anything.

harker 20 ->wellesley 24 and did pf in hs

set up an email chain before round and add me: amandakcheung@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

Voting:

- everything extended in final focus must be in summary

- weigh impacts: i don't want to do the work for you cuz it probably won't work out in your favor

- tech > truth

- COLLAPSE!!! (if u don't collapse starting in second summary (though preferably you start first summary), i give you a max of 28 speaks)

- implicate turns

- if you read something progressive, tell me the role it should play in my ballot (if its like Theory or a K explain it really clearly and expect me to evaluate it as a parent judge would)

- if its like disclosure theory and your opponents seem confused/ don't know how to debate it, i think its extremely uneducational for the round and will not vote for it/ drop u

General Preferences:

- i will give u < 25 if you are condescending, rude, or making the round unsafe (misgendering anyone's pronouns, being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist etc)

- speak as fast as you want as long as you're clear (i will stop flowing if you are too unclear). if you think you might be too fast or unclear (zoom quality etc) send a speech doc before your speech or ill just go off of whatever i could understand which will probably hurt you

- second rebuttal should frontline defense from the argument(s) that you are collapsing on and all offense

- second flight should preflow before the round

- ill give u up to a minute to look for evidence (more flexible if there's a lot called) and after that, it comes out of ur prep. also please send CUT CARDS not paraphrases or links to articles

- if you read a TW, please provide an anonymous out (google form etc) for your opponents and anyone in the room. if you don't do this, i will say that i feel uncomfortable regardless of the argument and make you read something else.

most importantly, debate's a safe space; if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, pls lmk!!

feel free to pm me with any questions u have on fb or amandakcheung@gmail.com

updated nov 2023 for gbx

I have been out of debate (washed/retired) for almost 2 years

this means

1) start your speeches SLOW so i can actually hear them

2) if i dont catch/minunderstand anything because its unclear/makes no sense to me, its your fault

---

yes email chain : arnavdani@gmail.com

Harker 2022

Debated in LD for 5 years

favorite argument I ever read: T/FW vs K aff

policy:

(Case/DA/CP) > T/Theory >> Phil/Tricks > K

99% of my debates have been here - take that as you will

logical argument > unexplained claims, i love some W logic

i also enjoy creative impact turns, examples i have gone for: co2 ag, renewables bad, heg, spark, decol bad->loose nukes

t/theory:

i have had some fun theory debates, some with arguments worth hearing, some not

defaults: NO RVIS, reasonability (debate it out tho)

will be a lot harder to convince me to vote on an rvi

ks:

if it doesn't look like I understand what's going on its because I don't

lbl in the 2nr>>> the big overview

answer this question pls (or question its answer as aff): "lowkey what does the alt do?"

phil/tricks:

i have zero debate experience here - mostly avoided it all my life

surprise me

random:

refer to ayan nath's and anshul reddy's paradigm for some other cool insights ab debate i agree with

I am a parent judge and I have judged few tournaments.

I will be judging on the framework and team spirit.

Have fun debating!

I know a lot about the topic and since I have been judging for the past almost two years, I do flow properly. Also, I believe that during cross-ex is when each side reveals their weaknesses and how well they have an understanding of the topic. So, I do closely look at cross fire.

Also, be nice and respectful to your opponents if you want high speaks from me.

In your summary, there can be new evidence but not any new arguments. In your final focus, there should not be any new arguments nor any new evidence.

Lastly, have fun!!

Hi everyone!

I mainly judge congress and that was the event I did for five years; however, I do have a lot of competitive experience in extemp and have been in outrounds for it as well. I've also competed in extemp, PF, interp, impromptu, and oratory, so I'd say I have a wide depth of knowledge of different events.

I've had success across all these events, so I promise I know what I'm doing when I'm judging and do my best to be fair.

I do flow.

For congress:

First and foremost, I'm looking for respect to other members of your chamber especially during questioning. Please don't speak over one another. Some amount of friendly fire is ok but it cannot be offensive or rude in any way, neither can your speeches.

In your speeches, make sure that you are incorporating the rest of the debate. This is not an oratory event. You should not have your speech memorized or say what you had written from home. Engage with your peers, include refutation and rebuttal. If you are not the first speaker on the bill, it is your responsibility to mention previous speakers!!! Your points should be well organized, so we can understand what you're trying to convey.

Congress is as much a speech event as it is debate, and I evaluate you as such. Your argumentation is equally as important as your presentation. That being said, I will rank you higher if you have a great argument but some stylistic errors, but if you have great style with shallow arguments, I will rank you lower than the type of speaker I mentioned previously.

Start your speech with some type of attention getter instead of just saying "this is the side of the bill I am on." Don't read directly off of your pad, make some eye contact with your audience. If you stumble, that is FINE. I will not penalize you, simply keep going with the rest of your speech. Always be ready to speak or to flip sides. You should have prepped both sides, so it shouldn't be a huge deal if you need to flip. I despise when rounds have to be put on hold because there are too many speakers on one side or no one wants to get up and give a speech.

There is nothing wrong with being the presiding officer (PO)!!! I will judge you based on how fair and efficient you are. Be as invisible as possible when it comes to argumentation, but add some spice in between when calling for speakers or questions. Rounds can easily get boring with repetitive arguments, but a PO has the luxury of engaging in a more conversational tone. If there is a PO election, I will have higher expectations of you. Also, I would highly prefer it if you have an online spreadsheet.

If you wish to amend the bill, please know the procedure before doing so otherwise the chamber goes into chaos.

Please have fun when participating in rounds! Become friends with the other congress people in your chamber because congress kids have a special advantage of having an event that is inherently social.

If you want feedback, I'm happy to talk to you after round or can give you my email if you would like and can message you my commentary.

Good luck!

Speed:  Does not matter as long as delivery does not suffer.  However, extreme speed makes it hard to find signposts in your arguments.

Signposts: Signposting is important for clarity and makes it easy to follow the flow.

Links between contentions:  The logic between linking contentions must be clear.

Summation:  You should be able to re-state your position by addressing the most important arguments in a concise and clear manner.

Overall:  Politeness, courtesy and respect for all participants is paramount. May the best debater win.

UC Berkeley Haas School of Business 02'

USC Law 07'

LARP/Policy - 1

K's/Phil/Tricks - Strike

Debate is first and foremost a game. This means that the affirmative must defend a topical plan and the neg has to prove the plan is a bad idea. I don't think people believe it when I say that I am not voting for a k or a non-topical affirmative - please don't test this. I default to util, it will be hard to win any other frameworks in front of me. Tricks are not real arguments and will not be evaluated - the reading of these will result in very low speaker points.

Quick Thoughts:

One conditional advocacy is not bad - anything else is up for debate

I will not vote off an RVI

Death is always bad

If you split the 2nr you will not get above a 28.5

Speed is not a problem - that being said please be clear and understandable (distinguish between tags and the card, go slower on analytics etc.) - I will not be able to understand 500 wpm of gibberish and your speaks will suffer greatly

The role of the ballot/judge is to vote for the better debater - this is non-negotiable

Disclosure is good - show me your wiki after the round and if it is nice I will boost your speaks

Flow please - show me your flows after the round for a speaks boost

Theory:

I default to using competing interpretations - reasonability will be hard to win in front of me. Please do comparative weighing and contextualize the abuse to this specific round rather than reading generic abuse stories.

Speaker Points:

30 - you are the best debater I have ever seen

29 - you will likely make late elimination rounds

28 - average - may clear

27 - below average

26 - you have a lot of work to do

Hi I'm Rohan. I debated PF at Harker in high school. If you have an email chain please add me (rohan.v.rashingkar@vanderbilt.edu) but I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to.

--

If you have 10 minutes, I highly recommend watching this video on learning how to give summary speeches. I'd also recommend the rest of the videos on their channel for learning other PF skills.

--

Here's how I judge a round

1. I see who's winning the weighing debate
2. If that team is also winning their case, they win the round
3. If they aren't winning their case, I evaluate the other team's case. If the other team wins their case, they win the round.
4. If neither team clearly wins their case, I have to personally intervene to choose a winner (This will probably not go your way)

--

Things I like to see

• Weighing (Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's arguments)
• Signposting (Tell me where on the flow you are; numbering your responses; ex: "We have 3 responses to our opponent's 2nd contention. First, ...")
• Extending your arguments in summary, making sure to not only focus on your own argument but also to address your opponent's responses to that argument (frontlining)
• Frontlining in second rebuttal (This isn't necessary, but it would be to your advantage especially if there were turns read on your case in first rebuttal)
• Not stealing prep (Don't prep outside of prep time like when your opponents are pulling up evidence)
• Not running Kritiks, theory, or other progressive arguments unless it's absolutely necessary
• Speaking at a conversational pace or slightly faster but nothing more than that, otherwise I may not be able to flow your arguments.
• Extra: I'll listen to cross but it's mostly for speaker points and won't affect my decision unless you bring up concessions in a speech.

--

“Victory comes from finding opportunities in problems” - Sun Tzu, Art of War

Email: 22DhruvS@students.harker.org (add me to the email chain/google doc)

Judging:

- Tech > Truth

- Please signpost (Tell me where on the flow you are)

- Please number responses.

- Please focus on warranting your arguments. Quality of args > quantity.

- Please weigh (Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's arguments)

- I'll listen to cross but it won't affect my decision unless you bring it up in later speeches (it will affect speaks).

Speaks/Other:

- Be confident and assertive but not rude during cross

- Don't steal prep time (Don't prep while your opponents are sending you evidence)

- Don't lie about evidence (If you do, your speaker points will drop)

Please ask me before the round starts if you have any questions about my judging philosophy.

Deven Shah Harker '22, Stanford '26 deven@devenshah.com

Hi, I'm Deven! I debated LD and formerly policy in high school. I've won several octas bids, NDCA, and twice broken at the TOC. I read everything from cybernetics to agenda politics.

I appreciate debates that involve substantive clash, where both teams forward good, clear, rejoining arguments from the start. This means I am bad for most theory, "tricks," arguments designed to confuse, strategies that rely on proliferating arguments instead of advancing a few good ones, etc.

Least favorite phrases: "LARP," "evaluate the debate after x speech," "Colt Peacemaker," "Nebel T," "disclosure is racist," "theory double-bind," "give me a 30."

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. 

If the 1st Speaking Team chooses to give all their prep time to the 2nd Speaking team and debate with zero prep time, I will bump up their speaks by 1 each :)

Also, I am frequently hungry, so food is welcome :)