hattieb@gmail.com <3

I do PF at Westridge school.

I vote off the flow but please speak passionately! :)

1. I don't flow cross but you should still look at me during cross

2. Extend your arguments into rebuttal

3. Tell me where to flow things

4. Sexism, racism, homophobia, etc will make me vote you down

what's up friends i'm jackie. i did pf for 2 years @ la salle & graduated in 2019.

** update for cal: if u wanna skip grand and just take 30 sec of prep thats fine w me i think grand is kinda pointless

if u have a question about something not covered here, please don't hesitate to ask me before the round!

- flip and preflow before the round PLEASE

- defense is sticky in 1st summary unless it was frontlined in 2nd rebuttal

- all offense in final focus needs to be in summary. i'm okay with new weighing in final as long as that weighing pertains to offense already extended in summary.

- frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is not required, but i think it's good strat to at least respond to turns.

- COLLAPSE PLEASE! don't go for everything. issue select. if u don't collapse u will see me looking v sad, even if ur ~nUKinG tHe fLoW~

- signpost. it'll give me a headache if u don't and tbh i might stop trying to follow u if u keep bouncing all over the place w/o telling me where to go. be methodical & tell me exactly where to write things.

- i really don't like having to call for cards?? in my mind, voting off of evidence is lowkey intervention on my end. so like. i'll only call for a card if an indict is read, implicated, and extended all the way thru ff. i'll only vote someone down off of ev if it's seriously miscut. otherwise, i'll always prefer a well-warranted analytic over blippy carded responses.

- if u read something racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist OR you read a sensitive arg without a trigger warning, i will absolutely tank ur speaks and will have a low threshold for arguments on why i should drop you. (if ur reading something questionable and u don't know if it could be triggering or not, always ALWAYS ask before reading it.)

- this should be a given but pls meta weigh. if ur winning on probability and ur opponents are winning on magnitude, i won't know how to evaluate the round unless u tell me

- i'm def open to evaluating progressive args if warranted/explained/linked to the res thoroughly.

- if u have a question about my decision/want additional feedback, i'm happy to give more detailed comments outside the round. u can also email me (jhenley3@stanford.edu).

PF & Parli coach for Nueva

- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges

- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- tech over truth

- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know

- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early

parli-specific:

- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway

- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me

- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within

- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!

pf-specific:

- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key

- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make

- hello greetings defense is sticky

- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.

email me at gia.karpouzis@gmail.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person

rubyshea.m@gmail.com

Debate doesn’t matter. Human rights atrocities happen no matter how I vote. We can only change what happens in a round, not in US foreign/domestic policy.

Coach for La Salle Pasadena. Coaching for 6 years @ local, circuit, TOC/NSDA Nats level.

Speed is fine (because debate doesn’t matter), but if it's not great, I'll let you know and say 'clear'. Don't spread--it's not a way to pick up my ballot (again, debate doesn’t matter). Threshold: 270 words, give or take.

New Summary/Prep rules: Spend 2 minutes on summary, then that third minute on weighing. Final focus--start with that weighing that your 1st speaker ended on, then do the extensions. Summary=collapse. Spend that newly acquired 3d minute of summary providing a comparative impact calc or link weighing or whatever, but explaining how you outweigh. Don't use summary as a 2nd/additional rebuttal, if you can help it. If you want me to consider your arguments in Final Focus, I need to have heard them extended through the Summary. Final focus should be mostly comparative weighing. I will vote for the team that recognizes their own arg in its relevance to their opponents'.

I have a soft spot for Kritiks (because debate is problematic), so you can try it out, but if your Kritik ends up doing more harm than good (taking advantage of a Kritik to pick up a ballot without truly interacting with the literature of the Kritik or understanding each party's participation in oppressive systems, etc. will annoy me), I'll not consider it and possibly intervene against you.

If I don't get something on the flow, it's because you didn't emphasize it enough. I'll weigh what's on my flow, and that's the best I can do.

Re: postrounding--I don't find it educational. In fact, as a woman in debate who has her decisions and presence questioned at nearly every intersection in this activity, I find that getting postrounded by debaters just makes the space hostile and exhausting. So if you find yourself disguising your anger at losing the round as "just asking questions about the flow/round to get better," or worse, trying to embarrass and discredit your judge or your opponents, I'll tank your speaks after the round is over. If you have questions (rather than a desire to regain some power that you lost in dropping the round), come see me outside the round and we can talk.

When in doubt, ask. Or strike me. Either works.

graduated speech captain who used to do pf. i will flow the round but if you go too fast i can promise you that i will get confused. i don't flow cross, but please see it as a major opportunity for speaker points.

please extend through ff. i will not vote on something if you drop it.

also, eye contact.