Hey, I'm a junior at CCA, and I've been in LD for 4 years

Major points:

- I'll vote on any arg but don't be offensive (ie no rape good, racism good, genocide good, etc)

- I almost always read Ks and love them

- Tech > truth

- Speed is good

- Disclosure is also good

- I am pretty bad at theory debates but I'll definitely vote on it, just don't blame me if I didn't evaluate it right

Defaults:

I can be convinced otherwise

- Competing Interps

- RVIs

- Drop the arg

Speaks:

30: REALLY good, will probably win the tournament

29.5-29.9: you did really well, will probably get to late elims

29-29.5: good, will probably break

28-28.9: about average

27-27.9: you could have been better, but it wasn't bad

26-26.9: definitely needs improvement

anything below: you were really rude or offensive somehow

If you insult Sai Gantla (person who's running this tournament) I'll boost your speaks :)

I'll update more later

Thus says the Lord, "He who does not take the time to think about the words he says shall be the first to take the L."

The team with the highest words spoken per minute will win.

---Adjusted for SDMSI 2018---

---(Adjusted Again)----

Any arguments not extended through summary speech are considered dropped. I will vote off of the content in your final focus, and that content must be extended from either your constructive or rebuttal speeches.

I like weighing and impact analysis - this makes it easier for me to vote for you. (It also makes the round less boring and grabs my attention, so please do it).

Crossfire is an opportunity. Use it.

Have fun.

**this paradigm is solely for judging middle school tournaments as I'm still in high school***

Hiya! Just as a summary, I'm fine with pretty much any argument you could run as long as you warrant it well. Frivolous theory in particular will make me v sad and bored but I will look to all arguments equally. [also I LOVE philosophy so feel free to run framework-heavy args]

Like every other judge on here, you can get like .5 extra speaks if you bribe me with food before the round so that's something to keep in mind.

I'll be more inclined to value your args if you mention cuil theory at some point during the debate or use the word "yeet" appropriately. If you want to physically turn around every time you say "turn" that will also amuse me. Puns are good. Memes are good.

Speed is fine if both parties are comfortable with it, just be sure to send me the doc. Yes, I wanna be in the email chain: natalierfeldman@gmail.com.

In all seriousness, just try to make clean extensions, signpost well, and give me a clear story in your last speech. I'll probably give really detailed feedback after the debate - I flow CX for that purpose. I think debate is an awesome activity that should be fun for everyone :) I can answer any specific questions before the round if necessary.

please please PLEASE stop calling for so much evidence what kind of norm is this

**current thoughts on debate: i think the longer judges take to come to a decision the more incorrect their ballot is**

email: gantlasr@gmail.com

4 years PF @ canyon crest/carmel valley, also championed the prestigious and well-run del norte pf round robin w/ syon iain & maanas

all events:

if you're going to spread, i need the speech doc

no slurring pls and slow down for numerical stats

please no Ks

messy round = long wait for rfd, see above

explain any topic-specific terms clearly

PF specific:

-you're best served debating the way that you normally debate as i can understand pretty much everything within the realm of PF and can adapt to most styles

-that being said, a few things you should know (most important --> least):

i require everything to be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal to access case offense, not just turns - be strategic

dropped defense can go from rebuttal to ff

ideally, no theory/K/etc. i think these types of arguments aren't relevant in most PF rounds -- i have a low threshold for responses

ill probably call for cards but if there's anything you want to make sure i read, tell me to in your speech -- i only read highlights unless you tell me to read unhighlighted parts

misc:

preflow in your own time, show up to round & set up table tote ASAP, flip beforehand etc - please don't keep the tournament waiting

For speaks: if it's a really good round, expect 30s. otherwise, I tend to give out pretty average speaks. Default 25 if you're syon mansur or Yash gupta

if you have further questions, ask before round

Public Forum, like all forums, is a waste of time.

fourth year PF debater at Canyon Crest

please consider the following during your round:

- regarding behavior: I run the tournament; take that as you will

I don't generally care about word flow, as long as I can understand what the speaker is trying to say. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I like handshakes before and after but you need to wipe your hand off if your glands like to excrete sweat. Fist bumps are a no go. Screw Isabella, shake her hand.

PF:

- Don't undermine your arguments in crossfire or I may vote unfavorably to you based on that.

- ++speaks if you tell me specific things your opponents drop.

- +++ I low key enjoy W.W.3 arguments if they work and have a lot of evidence. Don't do it though.

Parli:

- Utilize your framework if you bring one up — I WILL vote on it.

- Questions musts have a purpose, not to stall.

- ++speaks if you tell me specific things your opponents drop.

- Don't waste time being super specific on evidence sourcing unless it seems unreasonable — check NSDA rules for Parli evidence requirements.

Yo wassup, I'm a third year deb8er (Junior) at Canyon Crest Academy. I help out at the PTMS S&D club, so I'm representing them today :)

I can understand speaking fast, but if you do, speak clearly. I'm a flow judge. Extend everything through summary and final focus, or else I won't consider it in the round.

I am not super prepared on pharma yet, but I understand most arguments

Make sure to tell me what to weigh on, so talk about IMPACTS. Please do impact calculus or I will be really sad :(!!!!!

If I have to call for a card I will :)

My partner is the lovely Angela Yue. If you have her as a judge, lucky you. sHE iS tHE liGHt oF mY lIFe. However, I don't like puns like she does, so pls don't do it.

Guidelines for PF

TECH > TRUTH (but like 90%). IF THERE'S EVEN LIKE A .0000045% REAL WORLD CHANCE OF YOUR IMPACT HAPPENING, I'LL CONSIDER IT.

COIN FLIP WHILE I'M PRESENT. THE FLIP TENSION IS THE MOST EXCITING PART OF PF.

IF IT ISN'T IN SUMMARY, IT DOESN'T EXIST.

IF YOU DON'T TERMINALIZE YOUR IMPACTS, I WILL DO IT MYSELF (TO THE DETRIMENT OF YOU).

DEBATE IS FUN, SO I WILL EVALUATE MEME CASES/WEIRD ARGS.

PLEASE SIGNPOST.

IF BOTH TEAMS HAVE NO OFFENSE AT THE END, I DEFAULT TO THE FIRST SPEAKING TEAM.

NO PREPPING WHILE YOUR OPPONENTS CHECK YOUR CARDS.

NO CARD-CHECKING DURING CROSSFIRE. CALL FOR THE CARD, BUT READ IT DURING YOUR PREP.

I'LL TIME YOU (5-10 SECOND GRACE PERIODS), BUT NOT YOUR PREP. THAT'S YOUR OPPONENT'S JOB.

SPEAK AS FAST AS YOU WANT TO, BUT DO NOT SACRIFICE CLARITY FOR SPEED. "TURN THEIR IMPACT" MAKES MORE SENSE THAN "IRUYTOWIU LFJHLKIH, XCNBVNZB! AFFIRM."

shoutout to Justin Liu for this paradigm.

If I am judging you in any other event, PLS CONSIDER ME AS A FLAY JUDGE THANKS.

Novice/Middle School:

Did not debate the Catalonia topic, but have judged practice rounds for it, so any links must be thoroughly backed up and explained.

Off-time roadmaps are okay, just confirm with your opponents that they're okay with them too.

I've debated for 3 years at CCA, so:

- Yes, I will be flowing all of your speeches. No, I will not flow crossfire, so if anything important happens in crossfire, just bring it up in your next speech.

- I can handle speed, so if you want to speak quickly, go for it.

- SIGNPOST -- this is the surefire way to know that I will have counted your argument in that speech.

- I will judge the round based on whatever framework both teams agree on, so be sure to extend arguments and impacts (AND WEIGH THEM) in both Summary and Final Focus. If the framework is not agreed on, prove you win under both. I should not have to go back and determine what the most important points in the round are -- I expect you to weigh them for me.

- Anything said in Final Focus needs to have been brought up in Summary.

- If you are being unclear, I will put my pen down to signal that I am no longer flowing your arguments -- take that as a cue to clarify.

- Ultimately, treat me like a flay judge. It will mostly be tech over truth unless the argument is very clearly untrue.

- If you are rude during the round, expect very low speaks from me, even though I may give you the win. That being said, if you are being downright abusive, I will drop you.

Feel free to ask me questions about any more preferences you may want to be cleared up. Good luck!

I look at three main things: quality of argument, performance (appealing to the crowd), and logical reasoning.

!!! IF THE SECOND-SPEAKING SIDE CALLS FOR EVIDENCE OR TAKES PREP TIME BEFORE BOTH CASES ARE READ, THEY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DROPPED ON MY BALLOT. NO EXCEPTIONS.

--

Hi, I'm Pratik. I'm a former PF debater from Canyon Crest, now studying at UC Berkeley. (class of '23)

--

TLDR: Read the bold (but you should read everything if you have time). Also, these announcements:

*2020-2021 SEASON: Most presentational stuff in my paradigm won't apply because of remote debates so ignore those. BUT, the remote nature means you will have to speak more clearly than in an in-person debate.

--

How I judge:

- I consider myself a really basic, no-frills debater and judge, which means I would prefer the typical definitions/framework/contentions debate. I won't understand any policy/LD mumbo jumbo, and will never accept copies of your case/speech doc/etc.

- 80% flow, 20% speaking/presentation. As a general rule, better debaters tend to be better speakers. I have a big soft spot for 'flay' teams and rounds so if going fast isn't your thing, don't sweat it! It'll also boost your speaks for prelims. In elims, I tend to be more flow- and argumentation-heavy.

- I don't flow crossfire, or factor it in my decision. Use crossfire to trap your opponents and expose gaps in their arguments. Elaborate on your team's crossfire discoveries in the following speech.

- I will disclose unless it is too close to call on the flow. I will also give a (mostly) oral RFD after round unless we are running late. If either case occurs, expect a lengthy written RFD. You are always free to talk to me or ask for my email after round.

Other rules:

- I prefer speaking speed to be <200 words/min but can probably handle up to 225. Above 225, I won't be able to flow effectively, and 300+ is considered spreading. If I can't flow something you said because you were too fast, and end up dropping it or voting against it, that's on you, not me.

- No calling for evidence/running prep until both cases are read. Also, please don't slow down the flow of the debate by calling for evidence all the dang time.

- No using prep time before cross.

- Don't abuse offtime roadmaps. Keep roadmaps to 5 seconds if you want to use them offtime. However, ONTIME road maps/signposting are greatly encouraged and highly recommended (see "How to win").

- 5% grace period on speeches to wrap things up. If your opponents are being abusive with time, let me know.

- After the round, I may ask for cards. Keep them ready!

--

How to win:

- The 4 Cs: Be clear, concise, convincing, and confident. That's it. Everything else I say here falls under one of those.

- SIGNPOST! Please make my flow organized. Use roadmaps before/at the start of your speech and number your topics. (Ex. "My opponent's first contention was ___. I have three responses. First...")

- CLEAR, RELEVANT VOTER ISSUES IN FINAL FOCUS. If the debate is super messy, then I may just only factor your Final Focus speeches in my decision.

- Have good posture and delivery. Don't hunch over your paper/laptop in your delivery; look at me as much as you can while giving your speech. Remember, your speaks DO matter to me more than the average circuit judge.

--

How to lose:

- I will instantly give your team a loss and tank your speaks if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or otherwise egregiously exclusionary.

- Be rude to me, your opponents, or anyone else participating in or managing the tournament.

- Slur/mumble/speak in a way that I cannot understand and flow what you're saying. Spreading (talking in excess of 300 words/min for me) will be an instant loss and 25 speaks.

- Bring up new evidence in Final Focus. Only concepts expressed in Summary Speech can be expressed in Final Focus. The only exception is if your opponents dropped rebuttal defense in their Summary Speech.

- Fidget/fumble on or off the podium.

- Break tournament rules.

--

If you think your opponents are breaking the rules:

- Stop the round IMMEDIATELY (not after the round ends) and notify me. I will take appropriate action. I would prefer to have both sides present during a conflict, but if it is something you NEED to speak to me in private about (without your opponents around), please request not to disclose after round.

- The longer you wait until after the round to notify me of any wrongdoing, the less I can do about it. I will NEVER accept claims of a violation without evidence unless I noticed it too.

--

Speaking/presentation scale (updated 11/17/20):

NOTE: This score has NOTHING to do with the quality of your arguments.

25 or less: Rule violation, discrimination, spreading, etc.

26: Rudeness, I didn't understand anything you were saying, frequent pauses, monotony, distracting fidgeting, etc.

27: No droppable offenses, but below average.

28: Average.

29: You're VERY good, and only had a few errors that only minorly impacted your delivery.

30: Basically impossible to achieve from me.

--

Thanks for reading this really long paradigm! Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts.

--

PSA: Spreading, common in circuit LD and policy, is contrary to the purpose of debate because debate's main objective should be to stimulate discourse in forums all over the US and abroad. Spreading hinders any further discourse by strategically and unfairly stuffing arguments and winning off technicalities, making it inaccessible to a larger audience and lowering any chances of real discourse happening.

I am a flow judge

you dont need to extend defense though summary as first speaking team unless it is responded to

everything that you want to extend has to be in summary

I'm not a parent

extend and weigh impacts or I will not vote for you

I have been doing LD for 2 years, I'm a sophomore. I have a decent understanding of all events but i only do LD.

Feel free to read at whatever speed you like if you're gonna spread then send your case to me.

For speaks remember the difference between being funny and just being a jerk and you'll get 27+. Anything unethical (like falsifying evidence, saying you refuted something you didn't refute) and you will get 20 speaks and lose. If you bring me food +5 speaks.

I am not a big fan of lay debate if you want you can be lay but its not gonna get you a W your args will.

Make sure you extend args if you don't extend it doesn't apply. When you extend just say extend cont 3 don't explain the arg again if you do you're wasting time. If you drop something it is gone don't try to say you actually did refute it I'll just get annoyed and lower your speaks.

Don't run stuff from some random backfile that you don't understand.

Don't forget to tell me how I should weigh everything in the round.

FW: I like fw debates its interesting.

Theory: I love theory you can run whatever theory you want and I will be very very happy!!!!!

Kritiks: I like kritiks and want to learn more about them. I've written a few and refuted a few.

any questions email me: sophiateglia@gmail.com

PF:

- Use common sense and logic. No debate jargon and don't spread.

- Arguments must persuade a reasonable audience with no extensively complex knowledge of the topic.

- No new arguments/evidence past first summary.

Hello! I'm currently a junior at UCSD. I've debated PF for 4 years and LD for 2 years back in high school(Canyon Crest/Carmel Valley - graduated in 2018), mostly at lay tournaments but I do have circuit PF experience(I guess I would describe myself as the average "flay" judge).

I don't like to impose too many guidelines on how rounds should go, but here are some things to keep in mind:

Speed is fine, but if you do choose to spread, I need the speech docs.

I'm pretty flexible with any argument that you run(except for theory/Ks/tricks and stuff like that); just make sure you explain it clearly with weighing and signposting :)

Please don't be rude in crossfire/cross-ex.

Please no new information in final focus :)

Don't be afraid to ask me questions before/after the round! And most importantly, have fun!!!

As tabula rasa as possible but will not evaluate blatantly incorrect or offensive arguments. Reasonable speed please, no spreading — this is PF. I will disclose (if you have any questions or would like to know more about the round/decision, feel free to email me at isabella.yj.yang@gmail.com and don't hesitate to approach me outside of round!)

In the round:

- Don't extend through ink. (Everything said through ink will be disregarded UNLESS your opponent lets it slide completely)

- I'm lazy, as are many other judges: back half of the round must have impact calculus or some sort of comparative analysis. Don't make me weigh for you!

- Arguments in the final focus will only be evaluated if it's in summary.

- Don't go for everything after rebuttal. Issue selection is a definite plus and requirement in summary — list the voters and why you win them.

- Don't read Kritiks in PF please and thank you. I'm iffy on theory args but if it is well-executed, ++speaks.

- Framework is always optional in PF but if you read one I will vote off of it.

- I don't flow cross. If something comes up, it's gotta be in a speech if you want me to account for it.

Have fun and drink water!

**Handshakes/Fistbumps/Highfives are very welcome**

**UPDATE: I have not judged debate since Cal 2022. If you want to win, please start at 60% of your top speed and during rebuttals and please slow down on arguments you want me to actually evaluate. I swear nobody actually reads this so if you do read this, please tell me you read this before round and i will give u +0.5 speaker points.

*****

the most important thing of all: i am annoyed by how often i get postrounded by debaters who expected me to vote on an argument that was very unclearly articulated / basically not explained at all. if you want to win with argument x, please invest some time in your speech to explain argument x.

in the absence of arguments claiming otherwise, i will default to these:

neg presumption

tech > truth

comparative worlds

competing interps, rvis bad, drop the debater

fairness is most definitely a voter, education may or may not be

debate is probably a good activity (i am very neutral towards this and can easily be convinced otherwise)

******

background: canyon crest 20, duke 24

canyoncrestjy@gmail.com

please dont shake my hand

I debated 4 years of LD at Canyon Crest. I've done it all/tried everything out at one point or another -- policy, theory/tricks, nontopical, identity, high theory, etc. Thus, I care less about what you read and more about how you execute it.

Personally, I hated judge paradigms that said "i dont like x" or "i wont evaluate y" -- i believe this is your debate space, not mine.

i like fast debate -- slow debate is truly insufferable. this, however, is a double edged sword -- if you do fast debate terribly you will be punished for it.

there is a difference between being assertive and being an ass in cx

if you justify racism/genocide/bigotry good, you'll lose with the lowest speaks possible. if you lose to racism/genocide/bigotry good, please go home and reconsider if debate is for you.

things i like:

being a chiller, weighing your arguments, objectively winning the debate/doing anything that makes my job easier

things i dislike:

thanking me for being here, the phrase "off-time roadmap", the phrases " i stand in firm affirmation/negation", the phrase "Time starts in 3, 2, 1, now", a messy debate (this is different from a very close debate), 0 clash, vague/lack of signposting, using unnecessary strategies against novices/those obviously less skilled than you (this is your fastest ticket to the 25-26 speaker pt range)

Make eye contact or I'll cry.

Weigh your impacts. Tell me why I should care.

I'll pretend I have no previous knowledge of the topic so any falsified evidence that is not contested will be weighed.

+0.5 speaker points every time you make a pun. (legit)

Speaker points will be rewarded to the people who roast their opps during cross (it makes judging fun)

If there's no impact to weigh on both sides I'll flip a coin. Heads for AFF tails for NEG.