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!

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!!

About me:

• I am a Harker Teacher Judge. 
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect. 

Policy
Be sure to add me to the email chain: beerud@gmail.com
Affirmative - Have a good impact calc but don't always have the same impact of nuclear war, nuclear war, extinction, nuclear war because when judging I'll probably have some skepticism around there. Make sure you clearly know your aff so you don't get stumped by "what does your ___ evidence say" it's one thing to ask bad questions, it's another thing to answer bad questions badly.
K Affs - Only go for it if you know what you're doing - I hate it when you poorly execute a K, so be sure to properly know the advocacy and what it entails. I'd be glad to judge performance affs but make sure you know what you're doing.
FW versus K Affs - If you go against a K aff be sure to do this, framework should be your go to argument against any K-affs. Some of the best policy debates were super contextualized framework args against kritikal teams with flushed out impact arguments.
Topicality - I wouldn't exactly advise you going for T in the 2nr but if that's your thing, go for it. Don't just spit out interns and counterinterps at each other without knowing what you're doing. Make it extremely clear why the plan is bad for debate.
Ks - I definitely like k args, so I'm down to vote for a k. This doesn't mean I'm just going to vote for a team that proposes to read a k in front of me. Although I will vote for generic links that are nearly dropped by the other team, I will reward you if your link is specific to the aff. Make your decisions at your own risk when it comes to the 2nr. It is also especially important to have multiple framing arguments and perm arguments (if necessary). In order to get my vote, I need to have a clear understanding of the alt and what it does for us.
DA/CP - The more specific they are to the aff the easier it is for me to vote for them. I'm not exactly a fan of a politics DA, but if that's your thing, go for it. The link for the DA and the solvency/net benefits for the CP will be important, so make sure you take that into consideration.

PF
Speed - When it comes to Pofo I'm not exactly a fan of speed. If you still choose to speak fast, make sure you are clear and not just blurting out arguments. If that's the case, I'm not inclined to vote for you.
Extension Args - Be clear as to what specific cards/arguments you want me to extend in the Summary/FF. Make sure you signpost before your speech so I know where you are at any given time in the speech. I prefer logical warrants over cards, so make sure you don't say "I have a card so it's true" because then you won't exactly get my vote.
Evidence - I might call for evidence after the round is over if necessary. Make sure you present evidence when asked to and not to refuse. DO NOT PARAPHRASE ANY NEW CARDS OR YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY D/Qed. Don't make me vote for the opposing team just because you want to save time.
Case Specifics - Don't pile card after card on me without any logical reason why to prefer that card. Don't have seven different contentions of thirty seconds each because it'll get all messy on the flow. Make sure to tell me why your impact outweighs theirs and do a decent impact calc. Don't drop impact.
Framework - Be sure to provide a framework for me and stick with it till the FF telling me why to vote for your framework and why you win on that framework. Don't argue each other's framework if you're using the same one. I once judged a round in which one team was proposing util and the other was proposing CBA and they KEPT ARGUING WHY TO PREFER THEIR FW. Don't do that. If neither teams propose a framework I'll go default to CBA.
Crossfire - Don't be too rude in cross - it's okay to a certain extent but don't be talking forever and ever to the extent where your opponent has to ask you to stop. I won't flow useless arguments in cross, but I will flow concessions or cross arguments brought up in later speeches.

Congress - Many of my rules for presentation and content still apply here. Keep your speeches within the alloted time and don't ignore the PO when they're gaveling you down. I reward debaters who advance debate rather than merely reiterating previously discussed points. If you speak late in cycle, either do the most to bring up unique points, respond to previous speakers, or do a summary/crystallization speech on the major voters in the round. Critiquing loopholes in a bill or the way a resolution is written will win extra points from me. Same goes for amendments, provided they're germaine and substantive. Keep your questions tactful and strategic- I know what softballs and gotchas look like. As in PF, don't be rude in cross-ex.

Otherwise, be sure to have fun and have a great time debating.

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!