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: Grad of the Potomac School, freshman at Oxford University. Did PF in high school for all four years (plus two years in middle school). Ended career in the triple octafinals at the TOC. Loves Muji pens, table totes, and flowing.

What I like to see in a round:

- Speed is ok but DO NOT SPREAD. This is PF, not LD.

- Don't be rude to your opponents in CX or use sexist/racist/xenophobic/etc. arguments or I WILL drop you.

- Clash. Respond to and engage with your opponents' points.

- Clear debating. Explanation of topic and relevant terms as if I have not heard them before, LOTS of signposting and roadmaps.

- Extend arguments all the way through the flow. If it's not in summary it can't be in final focus. **You do not have to extend defense in first summary.**

- WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH -- both links and impacts. Otherwise I have to do it myself and we all know that sucks.

- Logic and evidence are always more compelling than spewing out cards.

Good luck!

Hello debaters,

I have been a judge for 3 years on the curcuit. My son, Rajesh, is an aviddebater and has taught me some aspects on how to judge a round, but I am still very inexperienced.

For the teams:

Please speak slowly, I will attempt to keep track of arguments the best I can.

For the topic:

I come from India, so I do know a bit about the topic. I worked within the tech sector so I do have some experience with H1B visas.

Make sure your arguments are easy to understand, it’ll help both of us in this round.

For speaker points:

Be clear and annunciate, I hate when I can’t understand what you are saying.

Don’t be a jerk in crossfire, thats not cool dude.

Being unprepared looks bad, so be ready before the round begins.

Jokes and puns are appreciated and will help you with speaker points.

Taylor swift references will be +1 speaker points.

A brief overview/ tl;dr about me: Hey I'm Danielle (she/her) and I debated for four years at Walt Whitman. Now, I'm a pretty washed-up college sophomore at WashU and haven't really done much debate since my senior year. I would consider myself a lay-er flow judge. I can still, and will, flow but please don't go fast (mostly because I think PF should be accessible). Please just be clear and give me a good narrative, also bc I probably don't know much about the topic. Also, bonus note: covid sucks. Let me know if there are ways I can help make you guys' life easier and I'm happy to try and accommodate.

s/o katherine sylvester for most of this paradigm. I miss you <3

On speed

--strong suggestion: do not go very fast. I'll be the first to admit, I'm slightly out of practice, but I still debated for four years. If I still miss out on your content, that's on you, not me. Unless there are extenuating circumstances e.g. VERY bad wifi problems, do not give me a speech doc, because I won't read it. I'm here to hear you speak; if I need a document to understand you, you've missed the point of this form of debate. (Of course, if you want to read off a speech doc I can't/won't stop you, but again if I miss an argument, warrant, impact etc. I'm not thinking twice about it.) Very fast speeches won't get 30's from me, and unless you give a genius speech, likely not 29.5's either. I believe a key part of a persuasive speech is being able to group, simplify, crystallize, and selectively choose arguments.

Things you should do to win

--collapse a lot (I like voters)

--extend relevant warrants and impacts (explanation--not just cards/tags) into summary and FF. This goes for responses too--I will buy a warranted, cardless response over an unwarranted, carded response 10 times out of 10

--weigh! as early as possible. Please be comparative(!!!) and warrant your weighing; don't just state mechanisms you think you're winning on

Notes on the flow

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal (assuming it isn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal) but I’d prefer 1st summary extend major defense regardless

--2nd rebuttal doesn't need to frontline their voters (although feel free if you want), though it should frontline major turns

--I am generally not at all a fan of theory/progressive args (esp. on minor stuff like, my opponents didn't read a date on one of their cards! or something). I also have very little experience with it and generally think it's dumb. If you impact/explain them well you can give it a shot but at your own risk

-- omg plz signpost. plz. if you do this, then I don't need a roadmap. just tell me where on the flow to start.

Things I really like

--anything/everything that is thoroughly warranted (rhetorically warranted def fine, with cards a benefit)

--generally lay-ish presentation--a narrative & slower speaking (I very much dislike blippy rebuttals/ card dumps). You can probably tell from the fact I wrote a paragraph about it... if you want high speaks, don't go super fast

-- just be kind and remember this is fun! if you do anything that is racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or something else that I think is rude and/or ridiculous I will drop you 99.9% of the time and give you -2 speaks

lmk if you have questions!

P.S.

IF YOU ARE OLD ENOUGH, PLEASE REGISTER TO VOTE. https://turbovote.org/ makes it super easy. And if you aren't old enough, most states you don't have to be 18 to work the polls. There's a big poll worker shortage with covid because generally older folk do it. Help uphold our democracy!!!

Background:

I debated 4 years of PF at Walt Whitman from 2015-2019.

Speaking:

1. Speak at a reasonable pace that I can flow and signpost before summary and final focus. Please don't spread.

2. Don't be rude in crossfire. I will drop your speaker points if you seem condescending to your opponents.

Argumentation:

1. I DO NOT usually find counterplans, disads, and theory convincing. If you try to run alternative arguments with me, you need to argue them really well to win. I don't think they usually have a place in PF.

2. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I probably will understand it.

3. IMPORTANT: If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or etc, I will significantly drop your speaker points and call you out for it at the end. If you notice your opponent doing this, you can definitely point this out and make it an argument to drop them.

Evidence:

1. I am a strong believer in quality > quantity. Please don't card dump without explaining warrants or actually refuting the argument.

2. DON'T miscut evidence. If it is severely miscut, tell me to call it and I will discount it from the round and consider dropping speaker points.

How to win:

If you do these five things better than the opponents, you will win:

1. CLEARLY identify the arguments in the round and which ones are important

2. WEIGH comparatively to your opponents' arguments

3. EXTEND arguments throughout summary and FF

4. ADDRESS all the arguments in the round, and highlight dropped arguments

5. GIVE a narrative that uses persuasion not just evidence

Hello debaters!

My name is Rebecca Hirsh and my daughter, Georgia, is a PF debater like you! From that, I have come to really appreciate the time and effort put forth by debaters.

For my preferences: I value explanations and civility above all else. The point of debate at the end of the day is to have fun! Be kind to your opponents and be kind to your partners, you are a TEAM and you should present yourself as such. There is no need to be brash. (This especially goes for the questioning periods — no need to get riled up.)

For arguments, have fun with them! Just make sure you explain it fully so I can write it down. I don't focus on evidence (or "cards") as much, more on the content of the evidence. Explain these throughout the round and make sure you explain your opponents' arguments when you want to respond to them. Just helps me organize myself more.

Remember you are here for a reason! All of you have worked so hard for this, so remember to enjoy yourself in round! It's the reason you joined this mind-boggling activity in the first place.

See you in round!

Email is zkaufmann24@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make a round better for you!

Some general notes:

* Make strategic decisions!

* Please, for the love of all that is holy, put a warrant in everything you say. If your argument lacks a warrant, it's not an argument. I don't feel comfortable voting on things which I would be unable to explain to the opposing team as part of an RFD. Good logic > decontextualized quantitative evidence.

* Please, please weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more. Please explain explicitly how your arguments interact and do weighing that is good, nuanced, and makes sense within the context of the round. Quality > quantity.

* Rebuttal should answer turns on case and include weighing; generally I think that you should respond to offensive arguments in the next speech, case obviously excepted. You need to extend defense in every speech, conditional on your opponents' having answered it.

* If you want me to vote on something, it needs to be cleanly extended in both summary and final focus (i.e. link, warrant, impact, even for dropped arguments). Extend turns in first summary if you’re gonna hinge your whole round strat on it, basically. If I don’t know what I’m voting for, I’ll be sad and your speaks will suffer.

* Debating the way you want to debate and having fun is great, because otherwise there’s no reason for any of us to be here.

* I appreciate non-util framing and making arguments that you actually care about.

* If you feel comfortable, add your pronouns on tab.

Things I am Fine With:

* I am okay-ish with speed. I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but if you want me to flow important analysis or author names you should slow down.

* I'm fine with theory which checks back for actual abuse and which is articulated more like a traditional PF argument (i.e. paragraph form, which I find much easier to evaluate. If you start spreading, I will have no idea what is going on). I don’t know a ton about theory/Ks/etc, so if you want to do this explain it clearly and a little slower than usual and you should be fine.

In the words of Harry Bagenstos: "I think it is probably possible to debate nontraditional PF arguments such that even an opponent who has no prior familiarity with the style can understand and make technically valid responses to them, and I think you should try to do that rather than presuming the existence of highly-developed theoretical principles imported from other events." In general, just debate how you want to debate, but make a good-faith effort to include your opponents.

Specific Things Which I Dislike:

* Bad evidence ethics. Good logic beats bad evidence. If you want me to call evidence, tell me.

* Card dumping with no warrants. Also, extensions with no warrants. Basically anything without warranting. If you don't warrant something, "this isn't warranted" is an acceptable response.

* Exclusion generally. Debate fails if it’s not accessible to everyone. If you’re spreading to make sure your opponents can't flow or reading arguments that exclude the other debaters in the round, I will not be happy. This also means that I am open to progressive arguments if they check back for this.

* Debaters not treating other debaters like real human beings. Joking around and being snarky is great, but anything blatantly offensive/ mean/ dismissive will get your speaks tanked and you possibly dropped. I debated as a female second speaker with a male partner and I encourage everyone—especially male debaters and those on all-male teams—to consider how "perceptual dominance" or humor can come across as demeaning.

* Co opting issues for a strategy. Care about the issue and make the debate productive for everyone. Consider content warnings and flexing contentions if someone objects--sensitive topics don't exist in a vacuum and can affect the people around you, so be conscious and you should be fine. IF YOU DO NOT READ A CONTENT WARNING ON A SENSITIVE ARGUMENT AND YOUR OPPONENTS OBJECT IN ANY WAY, I WILL DROP YOU. IF ARE RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST, ABLEIST, ETC, I WILL DROP YOU. I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPASSION FOR OTHER PEOPLE. If you don't know how to run a content warning, you can ask me before the round starts.

Things I Do Not Care About:

* What you’re wearing, how you're sitting, etc... Debate is stressful and you should be comfy.

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

As a lawyer, I take part in a slightly different type of arguing. After reading the wikipedia page for Public Forum debate, I've concluded that since PF is about appealing to the masses, if I can't understand you, you shouldn't win. I understand that PF has adapted since its conception, but when it comes down to it you should NOT be speaking quickly in round. That's not how you persuade an audience. Either way, I won't know what you're saying. I also expect you to use language that the average person can understand. I will NOT be researching your topic on my own; it's your job to make me understand.

Both my sons did debate in high school, one is a senior this year! Because of this, I know about the rules of PF. Here are the ones I emphasize:

-Arguments must be extended throughout the round to be considered offense

-Responses must be extended through all speeches

Although they're maybe not as meticulous as those of seasoned debaters, my notes will document the round fairly well. Good Luck!

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

hi kids.

it's all about the flow. i want to see two minutes of frontlining in second rebuttal and make sure you extend defense throughout the round. if you bring up a new argument in final focus i won't flow it. you get a 30 if you correctly quote harry potter 6 or africa by toto in a speech. explain why your points stand and why they're important. don't be mean.

yeet